sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ad Council, Afognak Forest, Bernhard Fernow, Binger Hermann, Coconino National Forest, Forest Principles

United States Department of Agriculture • Service The USDA Forest Service— The First Century

ss ss ss s s s s s s

s s

s s

s

CENTENNIAL s

s

s s

COMMEMORATIVE s

s

EDITION s

s s

s 1905-2005

s

s s

s

s

s s s s s THE USDA FOREST SERVICE — THE FIRST CENTURY

by

Gerald W. Williams, Ph.D. Historical Analyst

Slightly revised April 2005 FS-650

USDA Forest Service Office of Communication , DC The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activi- ties on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

The Beginning Era of Concern About Natural Resources, 1873-1905 ...... 2 The Visionaries...... 3 Federal Involvement in ...... 5 The Forest Reserve Act of 1891...... 8 The National Forest Commission of 1896...... 8 The Organic Act of 1897...... 10

The Early Forest Service Organization Era, 1905-1910 ...... 17 The Establishment of the Forest Service in July 1905...... 17 Land Frauds...... 24 New Forest Reserves...... 25 Decentralization...... 26 Forest Service Research...... 29

The or Custodial Management Era, 1910-1933 ...... 31 Forest Products Laboratory and Research...... 35 Recreational Developments...... 42 Railroad Land Grants...... 47 World War I and Aftermath...... 47 Timber Sales...... 53 Recreation and ...... 56

The Great Depression Era, 1933-1942 ...... 66 Civilian Conservation Corps...... 66 Shelterbelt Project...... 71 Wilderness...... 76 Timber Salvage of 1938...... 78 Smokejumping and National Defense...... 79

The War Years, 1942-1945 ...... 81 The Sustained-Yield Act of 1944 and Sustained-Yield Units...... 82 Smokey ...... 83

The Postwar Development Era, 1946-1959 ...... 88 Timber Management...... 88 Research Builds...... 93 Forest Protection...... 93 New Specialists and Land...... 94 Mining...... 97 Recreation and Timber Demands...... 100

The USDA Forest—The First Century ■ i The Fully Managed, Multiple-Use Forest Era, 1960-1970 ...... 102 Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960...... 102 Work Programs...... 107 Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts...... 108 Using Litigation To Settle Disputes With the Forest Service...... 111

The and Public Participation Era, 1970-1993 ...... 112 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969...... 112 Controversies Over ...... 114 Youth Conservation Corps, Young Adult Conservation Corps, and Related Programs...... 117 National Forest Volunteers...... 120 RARE and RARE II...... 121 Endangered Species Act of 1973...... 121 National Forest Planning...... 122 Internal Struggles...... 129 Owls and Other Wildlife...... 133 Yellowstone Fire in 1988...... 137 Development of Partnerships...... 138 International Forestry...... 139

Ecosystem Management and the Future Era, 1993-Present ...... 143

Changes in the National —Over 100 Years of Progress ...... 149

Summary - 100 Years and More of National Forests ...... 154

Further Reading ...... 156

Chiefs of the Forest Service:

Gifford Pinchot—First Chief of the Forest Service, 1905-1910...... 14 Henry S. Graves—Second Chief, 1910-1920...... 34 William B. Greeley—Third Chief, 1920-1928...... 52 Robert Y. Stuart—Fourth Chief, 1928-1933...... 64 Ferdinand A. Silcox—Fifth Chief, 1933-1939...... 70 Earle H. Clapp—Sixth Chief, 1939-1943...... 79 Lyle F. Watts—Seventh Chief, 1943-1952...... 82 Richard E. McArdle—Eighth Chief, 1952-1962...... 94 Edward P. Cliff—Ninth Chief, 1962-1972...... 105 John R. McGuire—Tenth Chief, 1972-1979...... 119 R. Max Peterson—Eleventh Chief, 1979-1987...... 128 F. Dale Robertson—Twelfth Chief, 1987-1993...... 132 Jack Ward Thomas—Thirteenth Chief, 1993-1996...... 146 Mike Dombeck—Fourteenth Chief, 1997-2001...... 147 Dale N. Bosworth—Fifteenth Chief, 2001-present...... 153

ii ■ The USDA Forest—The First Century Special Topics Arthur H. Carhart and the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness...... 60 Caribbean National Forest—First in the Western Hemisphere...... 15 Civilian Conservation Corps (1933-1942)...... 67 Clearcutting on the National Forests...... 115 Ecosystem Management...... 145 Forest Fires and ...... 31 Forest Products Laboratory—Madison, Wisconsin...... 36 Forest Service Badges and Patches...... 21 Forest Rangers...... 19 Grazing on the National Forests...... 74 Hallie M. Daggett—Woman Lookout...... 51 International Forestry...... 140 and “The Land Ethic”...... 61 Robert Marshall...... 77 Mining on the National Forests...... 98 ...... 9 Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960...... 105 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969...... 113 National Forest Management Act of 1976...... 127 National Grasslands...... 95 Recreation on the National Forests...... 42 Research on the National Forests...... 39 Shelterbelt Program on the Great Plains...... 72 The Story of ...... 84 State and Private Forestry...... 27 Timber Harvesting From the National Forests...... 54 Cutting Technology...... 90 of 1911...... 37 Wilderness Act and Howard Zahniser...... 109 Wildlife and the National Forests...... 135

The USDA Forest—The First Century ■ iii iv ■ The USDA Forest—The First Century Introduction

he founding of the National Forest System and the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has its roots in the T last quarter of the 19th century and was directly related to three vision- ary men: Franklin B. Hough, Bernhard E. Fernow, and . These three contributed countless hours, strong leadership, and assistance to the new field of forestry and especially Federal forestry. Their expertise helped to cre- ate millions of acres of forest reserves (now called national forests) in the West. They also laid the foundation for the development of the new Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture. These visionaries, along with willing presidents (especially Teddy Roosevelt), scientific and conservation organizations, and newly trained forestry professionals, led the successful effort in retaining millions of acres of Federal forest land for future generations.

The pride and professionalism shared by these early leaders continue in the For- est Service today. These forestry crusaders were so successful in their battle for protection of public forest domain land that today the has a system of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 20 research and experimental forests, as well as other special areas covering 191 million acres of public land. The Forest Service has evolved into a 35,000-employee agency that manages the national forests and grasslands for a number of multiple uses, including tim- ber, wilderness, recreation, minerals, water, grazing, and wildlife. The people who work “on the ground” in the national forests include President specialists such as ecologists, Theodore , silviculturists, engi- Roosevelt neers, range conservationists, , surveyors, hydrol- ogists, landscape architects, archeologists, soil scientists, fisheries biologists, wildlife biologists, and geologists. Sup- porting these specialists are an assortment of planners, econo- mists, public affairs specialists, social scientists, budget and fi- nancial administrators, human resource specialists, civil rights specialists, computer program- mers, accountants, technicians, clerks, writers, editors, carpen- ters, mechanics, heavy equip- ment operators, and others.

Library of Congress

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■  The Beginning Era of Concern About Natural Resources, 1873-1905

ollowing the devastating Civil War, the United States experienced tremendous change, especially in the West. American Indians, F buffalo, trappers, and pioneers had already given way to miners, tim- ber cutters, and other people bent on exploiting the land and resources of our quickly growing, resource-rich Nation. Herds of cattle and sheep soon spread over the grasslands of the Great Plains and Southwest.

Yet, even these uses were beginning to be replaced by homesteading farmers who broke the sod and sowed the grain on the prairies and plains. Hard-rock and hy- draulic mining were major industries in the Sierra Nevada, the , and the Rocky Mountain ranges. Mining extracted valuable minerals, but often severely eroded the land. Railroads had just finished linking the far West (California) with the rest of the Nation, and plans were being made to connect all of the West’s major population centers by rail. Congress gave massive land grants to many rail- roads, especially along the northern tier of States (from Minnesota to Washing- ton) to encourage the railroads to build rail lines connecting cites and , as well as spawn growth in the West. Timber companies, which had exhausted the virgin forests of the East, were quickly clearing the great pine forests of the Lake States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) and were contemplating moving their operations to the South and far West.

“Log Stacks” - Michigan White Pine Before 1900

USDA Forest Service

 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Acquisitiveness and exploitation were the spirit of the times, with little regard for the ethics of conservation or the needs of the future. The reaction to the abuse of the Nation’s natural resources during this period gave rise to America’s forestry and . The Visionaries

The beginning of America’s concern about the conservation of land for the people can be traced back to George Perkins Marsh, who in 1864 wrote the book Man and Nature: Or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. This influential book drew on the past to illustrate how human actions had harmed the Earth– leading to the demise of earlier civilizations. Marsh wanted not only to warn his contemporaries against this fate, but also to initiate actions to prevent it. One measure that Marsh advocated was the protection of forests–yet few heeded his important message.

Erosion - Effects of in Colorado, 1915

USDA Forest Service

Two other influential persons in the early conservation movement were John Wesley Powell, who surveyed and reported on large portions of the West and its major rivers for the U.S. Geophysical and Geological Survey, and F.V. Hayden, who made several important investigations of the —especially the Yellowstone area—for the U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey (prede- cessors of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Geological Survey). Several land- scape photographers of the era—Timothy H. O’Sullivan, William Henry Jackson, and Carlton E. Watkins—were also important in generating concern about the marvelous and unusual features of the unpopulated West. The impressive images they produced informed Americans of the stark beauty and impressive majesty that abounded in the western mountains and valleys. These elements came to-

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■  gether to protect the Yellowstone area in northwest Wyoming. Hayden’s scientific reports of its remarkable features accompanied by O’Sullivan’s spectacular pho- tographs swayed Congress to establish Yellowstone National Park in 1872—the first such park in the world.

Half Dome, Yosemite Na- tional Park

Carlton E. Watkins - Williams Collection

Others became convinced that the more ordinary forested areas, which were still in public ownership, also needed protection. This effort was spearheaded by Dr. Franklin B. Hough—a physician, historian, and statistician. He noticed that timber production in the East would fall off in some areas, while building up in others, which to him indicated that timber supplies in some areas of the United States were being exhausted. As a result of his study, Hough presented a paper, “On the Duty of Governments in the Preservation of Forests,” to the annual meet- ing of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), held at Portland, Maine, in August 1873. The following day, AAAS prepared and ap- proved a petition to Congress “on the importance of promoting the cultivation of timber and the preservation of forests.” They sought congressional action, but no legislation was passed for 3 years.

 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Federal Involvement Franklin B. in Forestry Hough On August 15, 1876, a rider (amendment) was attached to the free-seed clause of the Appropriations Act of 1876. This amendment provided $2,000 in funding for a per- son with “...approved attain- ment, who is practically well acquainted with methods of statistical inquery [sic], and who has evinced an intimate acquaintance with [forestry matters]....” This was the first Federal appropria- tion devoted to forestry. Dr. Hough received congressional appointment to undertake a study encompassing forest consumption, importation, exportation, national wants, probable supply for the future, the means of preserva- tion and renewal, the influ- ence of forests on climates, USDA Forest Service and forestry methods used in other . In 1878, his 650-page report, titled simply “Report on Forestry,” so impressed the Commis- sioner (later the Secretary) of Agriculture and Congress that they authorized the printing of 25,000 copies.

Thus, a new governmental “organization” was formed that consisted solely of Dr. Hough, as the first forestry agent, and was placed under the supervision of the Commissioner of Agriculture. However, Hough as the forestry agent did not have any authority over timbered areas that remained in public domain. In 1881, the Department of Agriculture Division of Forestry was temporarily established to study and report on forestry matters in the United States and abroad; Hough was named its “Chief.”

In Hough’s 1882 report, he recommended “that the principal bodies of timber land still remaining the property of the government...be withdrawn from sale or grant.” His idea was that this protected Federal timber would be cut under lease and that young timber growth would be protected for the future. In 1883, Na- thaniel H. Egleston, who had also played an active role in the American Forestry Association, replaced Hough.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■  Nathaniel H. Egleston

Egleston served uneventfully until the spring of 1886, when he was replaced by Dr. Bernhard E. Fernow, who was trained in forestry in his native Ger- many (there were no American forest- ry schools at the time). Fernow was a leader in the new field of forestry and a founder of the American Forestry Association. As Chief of the Division of Forestry, he brought professional- ism to it. He set up scientific research programs and initiated cooperative forestry projects with the States, including the planting of on the Great Plains. On June 30, 1886, the Division was given permanent status as part of the Department of Agricul- ture. This provided the needed stabil- ity for the fledgling organization.

USDA Forest Service

In early 1889, Charles S. Sargent, Bernhard E. professor of at Harvard Fernow and editor of Garden and Forest, wrote an editorial for his magazine that took to heart Hough’s 1882 recommenda- tion to not permit the sale or grant of Government timberland. Sargent proposed three things: The temporary withdrawal of all public forest lands from sale or homesteading; use of the U.S. Army to protect these lands and forests; and Presidential appointment of a commission to report to Congress on a plan of administration and con- trol of forested areas. As Gifford Pin- chot pointed out, “the first suggestion was politically impossible, the second USDA Forest Service practically unworkable, but the third, in the end (some 7 years later), put Government forestry on the map.”

 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century In April of the same year, the law committee of the American Forestry Associa- tion, consisting of Fernow, Egleston, and Edward Bowers of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (GLO), met with President Benjamin Harrison. The committee recommended that the Nation adopt an efficient forest- ry policy. In 1890, after the President took no action on the matter, the American Forestry Association petitioned Congress to make forest reservations and provide a commission to administer them. Again, no noticeable action took place, but there was a strong groundswell to retain the forest-covered public domain for the people. The rallied around the issue of protecting Yel- lowstone National Park, as well as other forested areas in the West. This sports- men’s club was founded in 1887 with members such as , Gifford Pinchot, , Henry Cabot Lodge, Henry L. Stimson, and many others. Their influence in national politics substantially helped the fledgling national forest movement in the early 1890’s and the decades to follow.

The weight of the data and the rec- ommendations of John Muir Hough, Fernow, Sargent, the Boone and Crockett Club, and the American Forestry Association led to the genesis of the National Forest System as we know it today. In the early 1890’s it was appar- ent to many that the remaining forests represented a great, but vulnerable, national asset that needed to be protect- ed from unbridled despoliation for the sake of posterity.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■  The Forest Reserve Act of 1891

In the spring of 1891, when Congress was debating the issue of land frauds (the illegal purchase or deceit in the homesteading of Federal land) related to the Tim- ber-Culture Act of 1873 and several other homestead laws, a rider was attached to a bill to revise a series of land laws. This small, one-sentence amendment (Section 24) allowed the President to establish forest reserves from public domain land:

SECTION 24—The President of the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any state or having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands, wholly or in part cov- ered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations; and the President shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof.

Since referred to as the “Creative Act” or the Forest Reserve Act of 3, 1891, it was used by President Harrison on March 30th of the same year to set aside the first forest reserve—the Yellowstone Park Timberland Reserve (now part of the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests in Wyoming). By the end of Har- rison’s term as President in the spring of 1893, he had created 15 forest reserves containing 13 million acres. These forest reserves were the White River , Pikes Peak, Plum Creek, South Platte, and Battlement Mesa all in Colorado; the Grand in ; the San Gabriel, Sierra, Trabuco Canyon, and San Bernardino in California; the Bull Run in ; Pacific in Washington; and the and Fish Culture Reserve in .

On September 28, 1893, his successor, President , added two forest reserves—the huge Forest Reserve and tiny Ashland Forest Reserve—totaling 5 million acres—in Oregon. Cleveland did not add any more forest reserves for almost 4 years, until Congress was willing to pass legislation to allow for the management of the public forests. The National Forest Commission of 1896

Meanwhile, there were efforts in Congress to change the procedure for establish- ing Federal forest reserves. In the summer of 1896, the National Forest Com- mission, the brainchild of the National Academy of Sciences, was funded by Congress. The commission, which consisted of Charles Sargent (chair), Henry L. Abbot, William H. Brewer, Alexander Agassiz, Arnold Hague, Gifford Pinchot (secretary), and Wolcott Gibbs (member ex-officio) traveled throughout the West touring existing forest reserves and areas where new reserves were proposed. John Muir and Henry S. Graves accompanied the commission on parts of their investigations. Although members of the commission disagreed with one another much of the time, they did agree on the need for Mt. Rainier and National Parks and on a number of new forest reserves.

 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century On February 22, 1897, President Cleveland, as a result of the Commission’s recommendations, proclaimed 13 new forest reserves in the West, known there- after as the “Washington’s Birthday Reserves.” The following forest reserves were established: San Jacinto and Stanislaus in California; Uintah in ; Mt. Rainier (renamed from Pacific and enlarged) and Olympic in Washington; Bitter Root, Lewis and Clarke, and Flathead in ; Black Hills in South Dakota; Priest River in ; and the Teton and Big Horn in Wyoming. The furor of opposition to these forest reserves was unprecedented, and the outcry resulted in Congress passing certain amendments to the 1897 Sundry Civil Appropriations bill.

JOHN MUIR

John Muir (1838-1914) left his native Scotland in 1849 to start a new life on the Wisconsin frontier. He attended the University of Wisconsin in his mid-twenties. After recovering from a serious accident to his eyes, he felt compelled to undertake a 5-month, 1,000-mile walk from Indiana to the tip of Florida. The following year, Muir voyaged to California, living at times in the wondrous Yosemite Valley, where he studied botany and the geology of the new State park. Muir was a strong advocate of the need to preserve the public forests and prohibit sheep grazing in the alpine . He mar- ried in 1880, settling in Martinez, California, where he became a successful farmer.

Returning to his work as an advocate for wilderness and forest preserva- tion, he wrote many articles about the need to transfer Yosemite back to the Federal Government and rename it as a national park. The effort was suc- cessful in 1890. Two years later he helped to organize and become the first president of the . The club gained national recognition for its efforts to reserve and preserve scenic and forest areas first in California then across the Nation. Muir lost his last major battle, when, in 1913, Congress authorized the reservoir in the valley adjacent to Yosemite Valley. Both were part of the , but forces from San Francisco, especially after the 1906 earthquake, were successful in having a dam built to supply clean water and power to the . Muir died 2 years before the dam was constructed.

His efforts at trying to have the national forests be more like national parks were countered by Gifford Pinchot with the notion that forests were to be used, while parks were to be preserved. Their disagreement was especially evident over grazing in the forest reserves. Muir did not want any; Pinchot felt that restricting grazing would be better than no grazing or unrestricted grazing. Both men were part of the 1896 National Forest Commission, which traveled throughout the West looking at existing and potential forest reserves. Despite their differences over sheep grazing and eventually Hetch Hetchy, they remained friends and often wrote to each other about their wonderful experiences together in the western mountains.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■  Muir was an eloquent spokesperson for the preservation movement in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Even today his name evokes a deeply felt ad- miration and resolve that characterizes many environmental organizations. He wrote many articles for national publication, as well as several books including: The Mountains of California (1894), Our National Parks (1901), and My First Summer in the Sierra (1911). His writings addressed many con- troversial issues, including the notion that the Earth and its resources had been made for people to use and to use up for the benefit of society. Muir argued that all living things were equally important parts of the land and that animals and plants have as much right to live and survive as people. Unlike many of the nature writers of his time, Muir tended to write about the environment through his own experiences. In an 1897 article for the Atlantic Monthly, Muir wrote:

Any fool can destroy trees. They cannot run away; and if they could, they would still be destroyed—chased and hunted down as long as fun or a dollar could be got out of their bark hides....God has cared for these trees, saved them...but he can- not save them from fools—only can do that.

The Organic Act of 1897

On June 4, 1897, President William McKinley signed the Sundry Act. One of the amendments, the so-called “Pettigrew Amendment” (later referred to as the “Organic Act”) provided that any new reserves would have to meet the criteria of forest protection, watershed protection, and timber production, thus provid- ing the charter for managing the forest reserves, later called national forests, for more than 75 years. The act also suspended the “Washington’s Birthday Reserves” for 9 months. This suspension was seen as a clever tactic to overcome western demands for totally eliminating the new forest reserves.

Basically, the Organic Act allowed for the proper care, protection, and manage- ment of the new forest reserves and provided an organization to manage them. One of the first, if not the first, GLO employee was Gifford Pinchot, who was hired in the summer of 1897, as a special forestry agent to make further investi- gations of the forest reserves and recommend ways to manage them. The Depart- ment of the Interior’s GLO was able to politically appoint superintendents in each State that had forest reserves. The following summer, 1898, saw the appointment of forest reserve supervisors and forest rangers to patrol the reserves.

10 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century GLO Division “R” Staff With Filib- ert Roth (L) and H.H. Jones (R) in Washington, DC

Library of Congress

For 7 years, until 1905, forest reserve superintendents, supervisors, and rang- ers were appointed by the U.S. senators and the GLO from the affected States through the Department of the Interior rather than the Department of Agricul- ture, where all the forestry experts were located.

One of the first men appointed Bill Kreutzer - as a ranger was Frank N. Ham- 1st GLO Forest mitt, a native of Denver, Colorado. Ranger, 1898 He went to work in the summer of 1898 on the Yellowstone Park Timberland Reserve. Prior to his appointment with the GLO, he had been chief of the cowboys in Colonel William F. Cody’s Wild West Show. Like many of the old- time GLO rangers, he was selected from the local area, but he had no knowledge of forestry. Yet he was a “rough-and-ready,” practical man with great knowledge of the moun- tains. He stayed with rangering until his untimely death in the summer of 1903 after falling from a cliff on that reserve (now the ).

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 11 GLO Ranger on the Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve

USDA Forest Service

Meanwhile, back East at the national level, performed his duties as Chief of the Division of Forestry with great distinction until April 15, 1898, when he resigned to become the Director of ’s new for- estry school. In the 25 years since Hough had presented his paper “On the Duty of Governments in the Preservation of Forests,” the Nation had made significant progress in its movement from the frontier exploitation of the natural resources in the forested areas toward a policy of wise use and conservation.

Fernow’s replacement was Gifford Pinchot—America’s first native-born profes- sional . He had been schooled at Yale, then spent one summer in and Germany studying forestry, gained experience in managing George Vanderbilt’s in Asheville, North Carolina, and became personally familiar with many of the new forest reserves through serving on the National Forest Commission. As the new and Chief of the Division of Forestry, Pinchot was in charge of 60 enthusiastic and dedicated employees. The head- quarters was on the third floor and a small place in the attic of the Department of Agriculture building in Washington, DC. Pinchot changed his title “Chief” to “Forester,” as there were “many chiefs in Washington, but only one forester.” The title of “Forester” would remain in use until the 1930’s.

12 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Forest Service Office in Washington, DC, 1901-1938

USDA Forest Service

Pinchot was instrumental in obtaining full bureau status for the Division of For- estry. It became the Bureau of Forestry on March 2, 1901. In 1902, the Minnesota Forest Reserve was the first reserve created by Congress rather than by Presiden- tial proclamation. Strong support by the of Women’s Clubs, which had 800,000 members in 1905, made the establishment of this forest reserve possible.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 13 Gifford Pinchot—First Chief of the Forest Service, 1905-1910

Born on August 11, 1865, in Simsbury, , Gifford Pinchot’s New Eng- land family was made up of well-to-do, upper-class merchants, politicians, and landowners. He became involved with the National Forest Commission during the summer of 1896, as it traveled through the West to investigate forested areas for possible forest reserves. After the passage of the Organic Act of 1897, Pinchot was hired as a special forest agent with the General Land Office to report on the forest reserve management situation. The following summer, the Secretary of Agriculture invited him to become “Chief” of the Department of Agri- culture’s Division of Forestry. During the same period, the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 elevated his friend, Theodore Roosevelt, to the Presidency. Pinchot, with Roosevelt’s willing approval, restructured and pro- fessionalized the management of the national forests, and greatly increased the area and number of these national treasures.

In 1905, the management of the forest reserves was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture and Pinchot’s new Forest Service. In 1907, the forest reserves were renamed national for- ests. During Pinchot’s era, the Forest Service and the national forests grew spectacularly. In 1905, there were 60 forest reserves covering 56 million acres; in 1910, there were 150 national forests covering 172 million acres. A pattern of effective organization and management was set during Pinchot’s administration, and the “conservation” (an idea or theme he invented) of natural resources in the broad sense of wise use became a widely known concept and an accepted national goal. He was the primary founder of the Society of American Foresters, which first met at his home in Washington, DC, in 1900. He served with great distinction, motivating and providing leadership in the management of natural resources and the protection of the national forests. He was replaced in 1910 by Henry “Harry” S. Graves, Dean of Forestry at Yale.

Gifford Pinchot wrote:

When I came home [from France] not a single acre of Govern- ment, State, or private timberland was under systematic forest management anywhere on the most richly timbered of all con- tinents....When the Gay Nineties began, the common word for forests was “inexhaustible.” To waste timber was a virtue and not a crime. There would always be plenty of timber.…The - men...regarded forest devastation as normal and second growth as a delusion of fools.... And as for sustained yield, no such idea

14 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century had ever entered their heads. The few friends of the forest were spoken of, when they were spoken of at all, as impractical theo- rists, fanatics, or “denudatics,” more or less touched in the head. What talk there was about forest protection was no more to the average American than the buzzing of a mosquito, and just about as irritating.

Without natural resources, life itself is impossible. From birth to death, natural resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter, and transport us. Upon them we depend for every material necessity, comfort, convenience, and protection in our lives. Without abundant resources prosperity is out of reach.

CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST— FIRST IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Adapted from Terry West’s Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)

Fifteen years before President Benjamin Harrison proclaimed the first Fed- eral forest reserve in the United States—the Yellowstone Forest Reserve in 1891—the Spanish Crown established reserves in Puerto Rico—then part of the Spanish Empire. The present Caribbean National Forest was formed from parts of these reserves.

In the 19th century, increased population accelerated the rapid and wide- spread destruction in Puerto Rico’s forest resources as trees were cleared for agricultural land—the economic base of the Nation. In 1816, colonial wars of independence and illegal timber trade led the island’s Governor to restrict the sale of considered important for naval use. If military concerns led to the first consideration of forest depletion, it was the impact of farming that really led to conservation measures. In 1824, alarmed by the extent of deforestation that government-sponsored farming caused, Gover- nor Miguel De La Torre issued Puerto Rico’s first conservation law (circular 493)—a decree to stem harm to watersheds by planting trees.

Puerto Rico remained under the dominion of Spain, which drafted the first comprehensive forest laws (1839) and set up forestry commissions that led to the first island-wide in 1844. These inventories were conducted by ingenieros de montes (forest engineers) for the cuerpo de montes (forest corps), a department directed by the minister of public works and staffed by graduates of the Spanish forestry school.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 15 The Puerto Rican government’s protection of the forest resources eroded in the next decades as Spain’s ability to fund distant programs faded along with its economic status. Yet, in 1876 King Alfonso XII strove to ensure continued conservation of soils and water quality and flows in Puerto Rico by creating forest reserves. Because the forests were sources of roofing - rial, fuelwood, and sawtimber for people, regulations for extraction needed to be enforced by the servicio de monteros (forest service).

As part of the settlement of the Spanish-American War of 1898, control of Puerto Rico passed to the United States.The Luquillo Forest Reserve was declared by Presidential proclamation in 1903. It became the Luquillo National Forest in 1907 when all the forest reserve names were changed to national forest names. (It has the distinction of being the only early forest reserve that was not established under authority of the 1891 act. Instead, the luquillo reserve was established under a 1902 act of Congress that gave the President 1 year to reserve “Crown lands” ceded to the United States by Spain in the Treaty of 1898.) In 1935, additional land was purchased and the Luquillo National Forest name was changed by executive order to become the Caribbean National Forest. In 1939, the Tropical Forest Ex- periment Station (now the International Institute of Tropical Forestry) was established in Puerto Rico. The Caribbean National Forest is the only tropi- cal ecosystem in the National Forest System and serves as an international management model for tropical forests.

16 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century The Early Forest Service Organization Era, 1905-1910

uring the early 20th century, the administration of the Federal forest reserves was divided between the supervisors and rangers of the GLO and the surveyors and mappers of the Geological Survey (USGS), both Din the Department of the Interior. The forestry experts in the Department of Agri- culture’s Bureau of Forestry were limited to technical forestry advice and assis- tance. Pinchot was the primary advocate (with the strong agreement of his friend President Theodore Roosevelt) of moving the responsibility of forest management away from the Department of the Interior. The Establishment of the Forest Service in July 1905

On February 1, 1905, Pinchot was able to unify all Federal forest administration under the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Forestry. The Forest Service was finally established on July 1, 1905, replacing the Bureau of Forestry name. The creation of the Forest Service was followed by a change—the custom of GLO for- est rangers gaining employment via political appointments ended, and selections were made through comprehensive field and written civil service examinations. These new standards helped create a workforce that was well-qualified, satisfied, and inspired by Pinchot’s leadership.

Agriculture Secre- tary James Wilson at the Department of Agriculture Building in Wash- ington, DC

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 17 The Forest Service’s early years were a period of pioneering in practical field for- estry on the national forests. Forest rangers were directed from Washington, DC, and by local national forest supervisors. A Use Book, written in 1905 and updated yearly, contained all the Forest Service laws and regulations used by the rangers. Today, of course, the laws require a book of 1,163 pages, while the regulations required to manage the national forests fill several bookshelves. The Forest Ser- vice manuals and handbooks are now available on the Forest Service’s computer system.

Arkansas Na- tional Forest Supervisor’s Office

USDA Forest Service

Much of the ranger’s activity centered on mapping the national forests, providing trail access, administering sheep and cattle permits, and protecting the forests from , game poachers, timber and grazing trespass, and exploiters. In other words, they acted as custodians of the national forests during this “Stetson hat” era. An important and controversial land management decision was made to charge user fees for sheep and cattle grazing on national forests. A law was passed in 1906 to transfer 10 percent of the forest receipts (through grazing fees and some timber sales) to the States to support public roads and schools. Two years later, payments to the States were increased to 25 percent.

18 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Sheep on the Way to Summer Range on the Beaverhead National Forest (Montana) in 1945

USDA Forest Service

FOREST RANGERS

After the passage of the Organic Act of 1897, the General Land Office (GLO) established a forestry unit—later called Division “R” (Forestry)—to administer the new forest reserves. State superintendents were appointed first, then in the summer of 1898, more men were politically appointed as summer forest rangers, usually to fight forest fires. These appointments were made by the GLO State superintendents, the GLO in Washington, DC, or by a U.S. Senator, who was appointed by the State legislature. There were great temptations and opportunities for political favoritism and graft in these appointments, resulting in many GLO rangers being less than compe- tent in managing the land and resources.

There are many stories of these early GLO rangers not doing the jobs they were assigned, going home every day to work their farms or businesses, being unwilling or unable to undergo the rigors of living in the wilderness for long periods of time, or simply not having any knowledge of what they were doing. In a few cases, GLO rangers were actively involved in land frauds committed by their friends or in accepting money to “assist” home- steaders in obtaining forest land that was immediately sold to speculators or timber companies.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 19 In the spring of 1905, management of the forest reserves (later called na- tional forests) was transferred from the Department of the Interior’s GLO to the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Forestry. On July 1, 1905, the Forest Service name came into being. Gifford Pinchot, as the first Chief of the agency, was intent on building a force of forest rangers who were trained in or had good knowledge of practical forestry. He considered the words on the “Invalids Need Not Apply” poster (circa 1905) to be “a slap at the Land Office...and certainly well deserved.” Pinchot was determined to transform the negative stigma of the GLO’s reign from 1897 through 1905 to a posi- tive image of professional Forest Service employees, dedicated to “scientific forestry” and public service.

When the forest reserves were turned over to the Forest Service, with a few exceptions, the GLO rangers quit Government service. The GLO rangers who did transfer to the new agency were very practical and greatly experi- enced men who helped form a cadre of highly talented rangers.

Beginning in the summer of 1905, the new Forest Service required that applicants for the forest ranger position (now under Civil Service rules) take practical written and field examinations. The written test, although not highly technical, was quite challenging. Questions were asked to determine an applicant knowledge of basic ranching and livestock, forest conditions, lumbering, surveying, mapping, cabin construction, and so on. The field examination, held outdoors, was also quite basic. It required applicants to demonstrate practical skills such as how to saddle a horse and ride at a trot and gallop, how to pack a horse or mule, how to “throw” a diamond hitch, accurately pace the distance around a measured course and compute the area in acres, and take bearings with a compass and follow a straight line. In the field examination’s early years, the applicants were also required to bring a rifle and pistol along with them to shoot accurately at a target. At some ranger examinations, the applicants were required to cook a meal, then EAT it! The applicants, as well as the rangers themselves, were not furnished with equipment, horses, or pack animals—they were required to have them for the test and for work, at their own expense. The pay was $60 per month.

The forest ranger job changed little for several decades, with the practical forester serving the agency well. University-trained foresters, or “technical foresters,” began to enter the agency after 1910, coming from the few col- leges and universities offering degrees in forestry. By the 1920’s, job special- ization was becoming common. The changing needs of society after World War II prompted the agency to open the national forests to timber harvest- ing, which meant that the role of the general practical forester was out- dated—university-trained specialists would take this agency into a new era. Today, agency employees are no longer required to take practical tests for employment and university-trained specialists are everywhere, but practical experience still “counts” highly in the Forest Service.

20 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century FOREST SERVICE BADGES AND PATCHES

Adapted from Frank Harmon’s 1980 Article “What Should Foresters Wear?” in the Journal of Forest History and other sources

As chief of the Bureau of Forestry, Gifford Pinchot began thinking about the need for a unique badge of authority for his agency employees even before the forest reserves were transferred from the Department of the Interior to Agriculture. When the shift finally took place early in 1905 and the bureau was designated as the Forest Service in the summer of the same year, Pin- chot set about at once to get a new official badge for the forest rangers (the earlier General Land Office used a nickel-plated, round badge).

For creation of the badge, Pinchot announced a contest among Washington Office employees. A highly varied collection of tree-related designs resulted, including scrolls, leaves, and maple seeds. Although the judges appreci- ated the employees’ artistic merits, they were dissatisfied because none of the designs included generally recognized symbols of authority. The group agreed that the vast responsibilities of the new Forest Service required such a symbol to help assure public recognition of the agency and respect for its officers and their authority, both in Washington, DC, and in the field. A reliable symbol was especially needed for those men in the field who were charged with applying and enforcing Federal laws and regulations in the face of an often suspicious and hostile local populace.

Edward T. Allen, one of the judges, strongly believed that a conventional shield was the best authority symbol. As it turned out, he and an associate, William C. Hodge, Jr., (who, like Allen, worked both in the Washington Office and in California between 1904 and 1906) came up with the design that became the official badge. In the spring of 1905, the two men were to- gether in Allen’s office or, perhaps, at a railroad depot in Missoula, Montana. Allen, who was attracted by the type of shield used by the Union Pacific Railroad, began tracing an outline of the shield (from a Union Pacific time- table) on a sheet of paper. He inserted the large letters U and S halfway from the top to the bottom of the shield, leaving a space between them. Hodge, looking on, was inspired to sketch a fir tree on a sheet of “roll-your-own” cigarette paper he took from his pocket. He then laid this between the U and S. The two men then quickly wrote “FOREST SERVICE” across the top and “DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE” across the bottom. The placement of the two names was probably dictated by available spaces. Whether this design had any influence on the soon-to-develop and still widely used but unofficial expression “U.S. Forest Service” is debatable. In any case, Pinchot and his assistant, Overton Price, were pleased with the design and called off a planned second contest.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 21 BRONZE BADGES

A large bronze badge—about 3 inches in diameter, slightly convex with raised letters and tree—was issued to all field officers by July 1, 1905. Less than 2 years later, Pinchot issued an order on the wearing of the badge: “Hereafter the badge will be worn only by officers of the Washington Of- fice when on inspection or administrative duty on the national forests, by inspectors, and by supervisors, rangers, and guards and other officers assigned to administrative duty under the supervisors.” The present bronze badge, first issued in 1915, is smaller than the original.

Badges for fire guards were nickel-plated bronze with the words “FOREST GUARD” across the top, “U.S.” on the left of the tree, “F.S.” on the right, and “DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE” on the bottom. Another forest guard badge type was made with “FOREST GUARD” across the top, “U.S.” left of the tree, “D.A.” on the right, and “FOREST SERVICE” at the bottom. Nei- ther of these Forest Guard badges had a raised edge around the border of the badge. The words were stamped into the surface and the tree was highly symmetrical.

Another badge was issued, probably to forest guards or lookouts, that was the same as the regular Forest Service bronze badge, only nickel-plated. Around 1922, a smaller 1-inch bronze badge was authorized for uniform wear. This badge was a smaller version of the larger badge. It was used on dress uniforms until around 1972. Finally, a flat bronze badge has been recently issued.

In addition to the three size variations and three forest guard variations, there were two other minor image changes: In 1920, the large letters U and S were lengthened, but the tree remained the same and, in 1938, Chief F.A. Silcox approved revising the tree image in the middle to make it longer/ taller. The tree and root shapes on the shield also changed slightly—the tree became more symmetrical and the roots became slightly shorter. Since the late 1930’s, there have been no additional changes to the image on the official badge. These changes were evident on both the badges and Forest Service shields everywhere.

Forest Service law enforcement, however, has a different official badge. This unusual shield stylistically resembles the regular Forest Service patch in shape, but it has several variations: An additional point at the top of the badge, an eagle with wings outspread and head facing to the left sitting on the top, and a slightly “fatter” main body. The badge was designed by Agent Dixon from 8 in the 1970’s. It is similar to other law enforcement badges of different agencies. At the top of the silver badge are the words “FOREST” and “SERVICE.” The words are separated from the remaining words by a bar across the narrow part of the badge. The round USDA sym- bol is in the center, including the words “UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE” in the upper three-quarters of the circle. On each side

22 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century of the round symbol are the highly stylized letters “U” on the left and “S” on the right. Immediately above these letters, between the letters and the word “SERVICE” are two five-pointed stars, one on each side. At the bottom of the patch are the words “LAW ENFORCEMENT” on one line and the “& INVESTIGATIONS” on the second line, both inside a raised banner.

CLOTH PATCHES

Since the early 1960’s, a cloth shoulder patch was authorized for wear on the left shoulder of official uniform shirts and jackets. The first authorized patch, issued in 1962, was flat on the bottom and sides, but rounded on the top. A curved overhead bar was added to designate which national forest or other office the wearer was from. In 1974, the current the Forest Service shield patch was authorized. The new patch, in the same shape as the badge, has the shield outlined in yellow, with the words and tree also in yellow against a green background.

There are two variations: An older, smaller 2-inch Forest Service flat bottom patch, sometimes called the women’s patch, which is identical to the larger 4-inch patch and the newer, smaller 2-inch Forest Service shield patch, also referred to as the women’s uniform patch, which is identical to the larger 4- inch patch except that the word “DEPARTMENT” is abbreviated to “DEPT.” and the word “AGRICULTURE” is abbreviated as “AGRIC.”

There were also two shoulder patches that are distinctly different from the other patches: A color variation—that of the Forest Service patch for winter snow ranger uniforms—orange border with black letters and tree on a white background and another snow ranger patch with a slightly smaller black- bordered shield with a larger orange shield outline. Apparently, the snow ranger patches were worn during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Several reasons for this unusual patch were: The patch could be worn on the outside of heavy winter clothing (the bronze badge could be underneath layers), it was highly visible against a dark green jacket, and when the ranger fell in the snow, the bronze badge would not be lost or cause injury.

Another special patch is that of Forest Service law enforcement. This re- sembles the regular Forest Service patch in shape, size, and color with the following variations: At the top of the patch the words, in yellow thread, “FOREST” and “SERVICE” are on two lines. In the middle is a round symbol of the USDA in the center (outlined in yellow) and a larger circle with the words (in green) “DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE” circling the upper two-thirds of the yellow circle. On each side of the round symbol are the letters “U” on the left and “S” on the right. Immediately above these letters, between the letters and the top word “SERVICE” are two five-pointed stars - one on each side. At the bottom of the patch is the word “ENFORCEMENT” (in green) inside a yellow thread ribbon.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 23 A very different shoulder patch has been authorized in recent years for Forest Service volunteers. This off-white patch is somewhat like the older Forest Service uniform patches: About 3 1/4 inches tall and 2 1/4 inches wide, with a flat bottom and rounded top. The patch is outlined in an olive green thread. The off-white background has sewn with olive green thread the words “FOREST SERVICE” with the word “VOLUNTEER” underneath. Above the words is a shallow “V” in a pea-green color which has two olive green evergreen trees (without needles) having three branches on each side of the main stem. The trees overlay a pea-green sun.

Land Frauds

As some of the forest reserve Forest Ranger boundaries had been hastily Camp in Logan drawn, the Forest Homestead Canyon, Cache Act of June 11, 1906, allowed National Forest (Utah) 1914 homesteading inside forest reserve boundaries on land that was considered primarily agricul- tural. However, there were many instances of land fraud on agri- cultural and State school lands. To meet the intent of the law, unscrupulous speculators would pay people to fraudulently claim that they were making a home on the land. After such “ownership,” when the homesteaded land was transferred from the Federal Gov- ernment, the new owners would immediately transfer that land’s ownership to a land speculator, timber, or mining company. The terms “land-office business” and USDA Forest Service “land-office rush” came about during this period—reflecting the legitimate and not-so-legitimate people lining up to secure land claims at the local GLO’s.

Federal investigations about land fraud were started in several States, and a few elected officials were indicted. The first successful fraud prosecutions, involv- ing land speculators and various State, , and GLO employees, occurred in Oregon between 1905 and 1910. GLO head Binger Hermann resigned after being indicted, but was later found innocent; Oregon’s Senator Mitchell was convicted. Many minor Federal and State officials spent time in jail over such wrong doings.

24 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century New Forest Reserves

In January 1907, there was considerable opposition to a Presidential procla- mation that reserved thousands of acres of prime Douglas-fir timberlands in northern Washington State. The local press, chambers of commerce, and the Washington State congressional delegation protested that the reserve would cause undue hardship on residents by taking away homestead and “prime” agricul- tural lands (the land, in fact, was not agricultural, but heavily forested) as well as impeding the future development of the State. After considerable pressure, Pinchot and President Roosevelt relented, by saying that the reserve had been a “clerical error.” Soon thereafter, Senator Charles W. Fulton of Oregon, who had been implicated in the land frauds in that State, introduced an amendment to the annual agricultural appropriations bill. This amendment, the Fulton Amendment, prohibited the President from creating any additional forest reserves in the six Western States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colo- rado; took away the President’s power to proclaim reserves, established under the Forest Reserve (Creative) Act of 1891; and gave Congress alone the authority to establish reserves. However, before this bill could be signed into law on March 7, 1907, Gifford Pinchot and the President came up with a plan.

Forest Ranger Tying Equipment and Supplies on a Horse, (Oregon), 1923

USDA Forest Service

On the eve of the bill’s signing, Chief Forester Pinchot and his assistant Arthur C. Ringland used a heavy blue pencil to draw many new forest reserves on maps. As soon a map was finished and a proclamation written, the President signed the paper to establish another forest reserve. On March 1st and 2nd, Roosevelt es- tablished 17 new or combined forest reserves containing over 16 million acres in these six Western States. These included the Bear Lodge in Wyoming; Las Animas and Ouray in Colorado; Little Rockies and Otter in Montana; Cabinet, Lewis & Clark, Palouse, and Port Neuf in Idaho; Colville and Rainier in Washington; and the Blue Mountains, Cascade, Coquille, Imnaha, Tillamook, and Umpqua in Oregon. These have been since referred to as the “Midnight Re- serves.” The President defended his actions by claiming that he had saved vast

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 25 tracts of timber from falling into the hands of the “lumber syndicate.” The Fulton amendment, at the suggestion of Pinchot, also changed the name of the “forest reserves” to “national forests” to make it clear that the forests were to be used and not preserved. The first national forests established east of the Mississippi River were the Ocala and Choctawhatchee National Forests in Florida in November 1908. Decentralization

During the same month, six offices were established in various sections of the : Denver, Colorado; Ogden, Utah; Missoula, Montana; Albuquerque, ; San Francisco, California; and Portland, Oregon. They were part of a successful effort to decentralize decisionmaking from Washington, DC, to the , which were closer to and more familiar with local and region-wide problems. These new districts were staffed the following December and January by employees from the Washington Office and various supervisor’s offices.

Decentralization was Fire carried further with Equipment the creation of the Warehouse Ogden (Utah) Sup- in Missoula, Montana ply Depot in 1909. This new depot was centrally located in the West and took advantage of the re- duced shipping costs and shortened time that it took remote

USDA Forest Service ranger outposts to receive supplies. To respond to local conditions, local national forest supervisors were given greater fiscal responsibilities. A seventh district, covering the administration of the national forests in Arkansas and Florida, was added in 1914. Alaska was made a separate district in 1921; then a new district was created in 1929 to cover the Eastern States. All the districts were renamed regional offices on May 1, 1930. (Region 7 was eliminated in 1966, leaving nine today.)

Pinchot recognized the need to continue cooperation with the States and the private sector when in 1908 he organized the Division of State and Private For- estry (S&PF) within the Forest Service. The new division immediately began a cooperative study with the States to look at forest taxation. With the passage of the Weeks Act of 1911, the S&PF focused on working with State forestry and fire prevention associations—a cooperative relationship that continues to this day.

26 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Perry Davis on Early Speeder Looking for Railroad Fires, (North Carolina), 1923

USDA Forest Service

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

The Forest Service and its predecessors have been involved with cooperative assistance to forest landowners since 1876. Several forest reserves were cre- ated to protect city water supplies (such as the Bull Run Timberland Reserve in 1892, Portland, Oregon’s water supply). Since the early USDA Division of Forestry and later Bureau of Forestry did not directly manage the for- est reserves, the main duty of USDA’s forestry experts was to assist private landowners—including writing plans for millions of acres of private timber land. After 1905, when management of the forest reserves transferred to the USDA and the new Forest Service, the Department’s foresters were quickly moved to field positions in the West. However, providing “practical for- estry” assistance to private landowners remained one of the agency’s most important missions.

In 1908, Gifford Pinchot recognized the Forest Service’s obligation to the private sector when he formally established the Branch of State and Private Forestry (S&PF) in the Washington Office. This was the second “leg” of the agency—the other being the National Forest System. Cooperation was ongoing with the USDA’s Bureau of Entomology for pest control work and with the Bureau of Plant Industry on forest tree diseases.

One of the new S&PF Division’s first efforts was to aid States in the study of forest taxation. The agency published wholesale lumber price lists and supported lumber industry efforts to retain a tariff on lumber—with the understanding that these efforts were in the public interest. The lumber industry wanted the Forest Service to keep Federal timber off the market. With the vast “storehouse” of national forest timber (much of it inaccessi-

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 27 ble), selling the trees before they were needed in the housing market would reduce private timber prices and generally weaken the lumber industry. Yet the Forest Service continued to sell small timber tracts to ensure that the national forests were used, not set aside as parks.

Chief Henry Graves noted that cooperation fell into three categories: Advis- ing States in establishing forest policies, assisting them in surveying their forest resources (mainly timber), and finally helping forest owners with practical forestry problems. Section 2 of the Weeks Act of 1911 codified Chief Graves’ ideas. It authorized the Forest Service to work together with its State counterparts to fight fire on Federal, State, or private land. (Pre- viously, if a fire started on private or State land, the Forest Service could not help until the fire entered national forest land.) With the Weeks Act in place, it did not matter where the fire started or ended, the main premise was to put it out and take care of the money later. The Weeks Act also au- thorized $10,000 in matching funds for State fire protection agencies’ local fire prevention programs.

The Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 greatly expanded the Weeks Act. The new act used cooperation and incentives to improve conditions on private forest land. Fire and taxes were the primary components of the act—which al- lowed Federal, State, and private interests to work together. Section 3 of the Clarke-McNary Act authorized the Forest Service to study tax laws and their effect on forest land management. Because of concerns over the Nation’s future wood supplies related to capital investments, activities, and even fire, the Forest Service assumed a responsibility in the tax matter. However, when Professor Fred R. Fairchild’s 1935 report on the tax matter failed to find any relationship between taxes and management, the report quickly fell into obscurity.

Based on the Lea Act of 1940, which was designed to unify and coordinate efforts to control the white pine blister rust problem, irrespective of proper- boundaries, the Forest Pest Control Act of 1947 recognized a Federal re- sponsibility for forest insect and disease protection on all ownerships. This law also offered technical and financial assistance to State forestry agencies to control insects and disease outbreaks in forested areas.

The most famous cooperative effort, which continues to this day, involves the forest fire prevention program (see the Smokey Bear sidebar). Begun during the first few months of 1942, cooperation between the Forest Ser- vice, State foresters, and the Advertising Council continue to spread the fire prevention program across the country.

The Cooperative Forest Management Act of 1950 expanded the Forest Service’s cooperative efforts of the post-war decade, provided for techni- cal assistance, and extended management assistance to all classes of forest ownership. The Forest Service gave priority to assisting small forest land-

28 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century owners. In 1952, the Forest Service initiated a major field inventory, the Timber Resources Review (TRR), to analyze the forest conditions on small forest landownerships. Although drafts of the report were circulated within 2 years, the forest products industry protected its results so much that the final report was not published until 1958! The TRR report found that forest practices would need to be intensified to meet future demands and that small ownerships were in the greatest need of assistance. Although the For- est Service made efforts to institute a program to remedy this situation, it proved to be too controversial and expensive.

The Small Watershed Program (Public Law 566) in 1954 expanded the Forest Service’s authority to include flood prevention on farmland water- sheds not exceeding 250,000 acres. The program covered flood prevention structures, upstream protection, and livestock control. The Forest Service worked closely with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) and Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the States to implement such projects.

The primary statutory authority for many of the current S&PF program activities is the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as amended by the 1990 farm bill. In the past, the cooperative forestry program has been based on timber production, wood utilization, fire protection, and insect and disease control, but the emphasis is changing. Cooperative forestry is now involved in to maintain trees within urban areas, reach out to new constituencies, and build new partnerships in the inner cit- ies. A new forest stewardship program seeks to help, both technically and financially, nonindustrial private forest owners to manage all the resources on their forest lands based on their own objectives. The rural development initiative is designed to help small communities diversify and strengthen their local economies.

Regional foresters are responsible for the S&PF programs with the excep- tion of the Northeastern Area, which is located in Newtown Square, Penn- sylvania. The Northeastern Area is a reflection of the large number of nonin- dustrial private woodland owners who reside in the Northeastern States.

Forest Service Research

The first forest experiment station was established in 1908 at Fort Valley on the , Arizona, followed by other research stations in Colo- rado, Idaho, Washington, California, and Utah. Today, there are 20 research and experimental areas in the National Forest System.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 29 Prior to 1910, the For- Regional est Service undertook Office, major efforts to evalu- Southwest ate sites for possible Region (Region 3) on-the-ground forest in Albuquer- management camps que, New called ranger stations. Mexico, Ranger stations were circa 1916 established because of the need to have local control on many of the national forests. About the same time, many of the larger forests were divided into smaller,

USDA Forest Service easier-to-manage na- tional forests.

The height of the nationwide conservation movement was between 1907 and 1909, just before and after Theodore Roosevelt’s National Conference of Gover- nors met at the White House in May 1908 to consider America’s natural re- sources. The President told conference attendees that “the conservation of natural resources is the most weighty question now before the people Oakridge Ranger of the United States.” The con- Station ference recommended that the Telephone President appoint a National Operator, Conservation Commission to Cascade Na- “inquire into and advise him as tional to the condition of our natural Forest (Oregon) resources.” The commission returned with a three-volume report, which Roosevelt used in the effort to conserve the Nation’s natural resources. Roosevelt left office in 1909 and was succeeded by . Pinchot ran into problems with the new Taft Administration’s Secretary of the Interior, Richard A. Ballinger, over coal leasing in Alaska. After months of national debate and personal attacks from both men, Taft fired Pinchot for insubordi- USDA Forest Service nation in January of 1910. Pin- chot was replaced as “Forester” by Henry Graves, his long-time associate and personal friend.

30 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century The Forest Protection or Custodial Management Era, 1910-1933

he next 23 years was the Forest Service’s era of forest protection through custodial management. Most important was a system for T detecting and fighting forest fires. During the summer of 1910, when extremely dry conditions prevailed in the West, widespread fires flared in the Northwest and the northern Rocky Mountains, burning over 3 million acres in Idaho and Montana alone. Seventy-eight forest firefighters lost their lives nation- wide trying to protect the national forests and remote communities from these devastating fires. Soon the Federal Government made firefighting funds available to combat such fires. As a result of the 1910 fires, cooperation between the vari- ous State foresters and the Forest Service became a driving force.

During this era, the Forest Service also began several important programs to better manage the national forests, including an extensive system of basic and applied research, timber management, recreation, and highways to better provide access to the forests.

FOREST FIRES AND FIREFIGHTING

Control of forest fires has long been considered as one of the most impor- tant aspects of forestry. Very large scale forest fires are primarily a North American phenomena, although many other countries face serious forest and brush fire conditions. Early European-trained foresters, under whose tutorage Pinchot and others learned the basics of forestry, had not dealt with large fires potentially covering hundreds of thousands of acres in one fire. As a result, forest fires in the United States were much more serious than those they had ever encountered.

Fire has long been used to clear land, change plant and tree species, sterilize land, maintain certain types of habitat, and for many other reasons. Indians are well-known to have used fire as a technique to maintain certain pieces of land or to improve habitats. Although early settlers often used fire in the same way as the Indians, major fires on public domain land were largely ignored and were often viewed as an opportunity to open forest land for grazing. If fires were fought at all, they were fought with shovels, brooms, rakes, fire lines, and backfires. When near farms, plows could be used to make fire lines in crops or near houses.

Especially large fires raged in during the 1800’s and early 1900’s. The public was becoming slowly aware of fire’s potential for life- threatening danger. The first very large fires were the Miramichi and Piscataquis fires of 1825 that burned around 3 million acres in Maine and New Brunswick. Other large and deadly fires were in the Lake States, including the Peshtigo fire of 1871 that covered over 1 million acres and

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 31 took over 1,400 lives in Wisconsin. At the same time, fires were burning in Michigan, cindering about 2.5 million acres. Ten years later, these devastat- ing Michigan fires were followed with another 1 million acres going up in smoke. In 1894, a large fire around Hinckley, Michigan, took the lives of 418 people. In 1903 and 1908, huge fires burned across parts of Maine to Upstate . In response, the first State fire organization in the East was established in Maine.

Federal involvement in trying to control forest fires began in the late 1890’s with the hiring of General Land Office rangers during the fire season. Largely ineffectual, the rangers were at least aware of many remote fires and could notify towns and settlers if a fire was heading their way. When the management of the forest reserves (now called national forests) were trans- ferred to the new Forest Service in 1905, the agency took on the respon- sibility of creating professional standards for firefighting, including having more rangers and hiring local people to help put out fires.

Of great importance to this cause were the devastating fires in the West. The first one was the 1902 Yacolt fire in southwestern Washington, which burned more than a million acres in Washington and Oregon and cost the lives of 38 people. A result of the fire was the formation of the Western Forestry and Conservation Association in 1909, led by the Edward T. Allen. In the previous year, Allen had been appointed as the first Forest Service Regional Forester in the Pacific Northwest Region. One year later, in the northern Rockies, some 3 million acres were burned in the “Big Blowup of 1910,” and another 2 million acres in other areas. Within a year, Congress passed the Weeks Act of 1911 which, in part, allowed the Forest Service to cooperate with the various States in fire protection and firefighting. The Forest Service also began a program of fire research, which continues to this day.

Lookout houses (many starting just as platforms atop trees) were used to locate fires from mountain tops during the fire season. The houses varied from low ground houses to very tall towers, sometimes over 100 feet tall. Just after World War I, the Forest Service contracted with the Army Air Ser- vice (Corps) to provide airplanes and pilots to spot fires from the air. This program worked successfully for more than 10 years until a comprehensive network of lookout houses and telephone systems were in place. Today, a computer network tracks every lightning strike and aerial patrols monitor for active fire sites after lightning storms. The few remaining lookouts still operating are valuable for locating human-caused fires. The Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 allowed the Forest Service to administer grants-in-aid to equal the amounts contributed to firefighting by the States and to set standards for firefighting and equipment.

During the 1930’s, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) program offered a change from just having Forest Service employees or hired people to fight

32 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century fires. CCC enrollees were sent by the thousands to help fight fires through- out the West. The CCC’s successfully tested and then used a 40-man (there were no women firefighters at this time) fire suppression crew. The CCC program also built and staffed thousands of lookout houses and towers across the country.

Near the end of the 1930’s, another new tactic was employed—having firefighters jump from airplanes to remote locations to put out fires before they became too large to fight. In 1939, smoke jumping was tested on the in Washington. The first smoke jumping on a forest fire took place July 12, 1940, on the Martin Creek fire on the Nez Perce National Forest of Idaho. The two were Rufus Robinson and Earl Cooley.

In 1935, the Forest Service developed the “10 a.m.” policy that stipulated that a fire was to be contained and controlled by 10 a.m. following the report of a fire, or, failing that goal, controlled by 10 a.m. the next day, and so on. Faced with the necessity of controlling a fire overnight, the Forest Service was compelled to call out massive numbers of firefighters to try and control these blazes in the initial attack. A new division of forest fire re- search began operation in 1948, with three laboratories opening soon there- after. On August 5, 1949, 13 smokejumpers lost their lives when a fire in Mann Gulch on Montana’s suddenly flared in high winds, leapt out of control, and enveloped the firefighters. This tragic event prompted the Forest Service to establish centers in Montana and California that were dedicated to developing and testing new firefighting equipment.

By the mid-1950’s, the Forest Service gradually assumed the primary responsibility for coordinating wildland and rural fire protection in the United States. During this time period, more than $200 million worth of World War II surplus equipment was passed to State and local cooperators. By 1956, air tankers, often military surplus B-17’s filled with a borate mix- ture, and helicopters for transport were in use.

In 1971, the Forest Service modified the 10 a.m. policy to handle fires in by using a 10-acre policy as a guide for planning. Thus, some fires were allowed to increase in size to 10 acres only if they did not destroy or threaten to destroy private property or if they endangered life or property adjacent to the wilderness. Another so-called “let burn” policy came into being in the 1980’s, it essentially allowed some fires, as in wilderness, to burn on the national forests depending on conditions. The 1988 fires in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem were devastating to large areas in and around the national park. In 1994, a forest fire claimed the lives of 10 hot shot crew firefighters when they tried to escape the fast moving South Canyon Fire on Storm King Mountain in Colorado.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 33 Result of the 1910 Fires Along St. Joe River on the Coeur d’Alene National Forest (Idaho)

USDA Forest Service

Henry S. Graves— Second Chief, 1910-1920

Pinchot’s close friend, Henry “Harry” Solon Graves born on May 3, 1871, in Marietta, Ohio, was also one of the seven original members of the Society of Ameri- can Foresters. Graves, an eminent profes- sional forester, served as the first professor and director of the newly founded Yale Forestry School. In 1910, he was selected to take over the reins of the 5-year-old Forest Service.

His 10-year stint as Chief of the Forest Service was characterized by a stabiliza- tion of the national forests, the purchase of new national forests in the East, and the strengthening of the foundations of forest- ry by putting them on a more scientific ba- sis. His great contribution was the successful launching of a national forest policy for the United States—a permanent and far-reaching achievement. During his tenure as Chief, the Forest Products Laboratory was established at Madison, Wisconsin; the Weeks Law of 1911 was enacted—allowing for the Federal Government to purchase forest lands (mostly in the East); and the Research branch of the Forest Service was organized.

34 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Henry Graves wrote:

When the policy of deeding away the public timberlands was at last found to be an unsafe one for the Nation, it was changed and the bulk of the remaining public timberlands were withdrawn from public appropriation and segregated as national forests. In this way, about 155 million acres, nearly all in the western mountains were reserved…. The public forests are being pro- tected from fire, the timber is used as it is called for by economic conditions, and the cutting is conducted by such methods as leave the land in favorable condition for the next crop of timber.

The very magnitude of the national forest enterprise has created in the minds of many people the impression that the problem in this country is already on the way to definite solution. In point of fact, only certain initial steps have been taken…. It is my hope that we may secure sufficient public support to enable us to accelerate the acquisition by the Government of the important remaining areas [in the East] before it is too late…. Forests on critical watersheds should be owned by the public for their pro- tective value. Public forests serve, also, as centers of co-operation with private owners and as demonstration areas for the practice of forestry as well as furnishing their direct benefits in producing wood materials, as recreation grounds, etc.

Forest Products Laboratory and Research

Chief of the Forest Service Henry Graves noted that with the forest practices of this era, loggers were typically leaving as much as 25 percent of the trees on the stump or ground and more than half of the trees that reached the mill were either discarded as waste products or burned on the site. In cooperation with Wisconsin State University (now the University of Wisconsin), the Forest Service established the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) in 1910 at Madison, Wisconsin. The FPL was to be a “laboratory of practical research” that would study and test the physical properties of wood; develop and test wood preservation techniques; study methods to reduce logging waste; improve lumber production methods in and devise new uses for wood fiber; distribute wood product informa- tion to the public; and cooperate with the wood products industry. FPL research made utilization of forest products an important element in the greater use and production of wood from public and private forests.

The Weeks Act of 1911 allowed the Government to purchase important private watershed land on the headwaters of navigable streams, which may have been cut over, burned over, or farmed out. As a result, this act indirectly supported the creation of new national forests through land purchases in the Eastern United States where there was little public domain land left. It also provided coopera- tion with, and Federal matching funds for, State forest fire protection agencies.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 35 Forest Products Laboratory, Madi- son, Wisconsin

USDA Forest Service

By 1920, more than 2 million acres of land had been purchased under the Weeks Act—by 1980 over 22 million acres in the East had been added to the National Forest System.

The Forest Service Research Branch, known earlier as the Office of Silvics, was established in 1915 to investigate better ways of managing the national forests, as well as to study the hundreds of tree species and to explore methods to reseed and replant forests. This period saw a great expansion of the number of national forest timber sales; the construction of numerous ranger stations, lookout, trails, and trail shelters; and the first use of telephones on national forests.

FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY— MADISON, WISCONSIN

In 1907, McGarvey Cline, head of the Forest Service’s wood use section, proposed that all wood product scientists be brought together under one roof. As a consequence, the University of Wisconsin constructed a spe- cial laboratory for its use in Madison, Wisconsin, and the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) began operations on October 1, 1909, and was officially opened on June 4 of the following year.

Scientific research on wood and wood products began in earnest, with FPL scientists receiving a large number of patents over the years. Some of the first work at FPL involved drying wood through a dry kiln process. Hundreds of species of wood were tested for their fiber strengths. A pulp and paper research unit was formed to study the mechanical and chemical pulping processes. Research started on wood’s chemical properties, distil- lation and extraction of chemicals from various , the manufacture of chemicals from trees, and the development of chemicals used to stabilize and moisture-proof wood products.

36 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century During World War I, the FPL was instrumental in efforts to produce light- weight, but very strong, airplanes. They tested the strengths of fuselages, wings, and propellers, and developed effective ways to use wood, cloth, and paint (dope) to strengthen the new airplane airframes. During World War I, FPL’s workforce rose from fewer than 100 to about 450. Paper was in short supply during World War I, so FPL scientists began research on tree species not commonly used for paper production.

In 1928, the McSweeney-McNary Act made special provisions for continua- tion of research at the FPL and, by 1931, the FPL had completed construc- tion of a new laboratory building. In 1932, FPL gained notoriety as the place where the wooden ladder used in the Lindbergh child’s kidnaping was analyzed. The advent of World War II caused the number of FPL employees to rise again, to around 700. They conducted research and development work on many wartime needs and uses, such as airplanes, ships, buildings, containers, paper, and . FPL became the model for national labora- tories around the world.

After the war, the FPL began to shift emphasis from old-growth, high- quality wood, such as pine and Douglas-fir, to the lesser-used species and more efficient uses of existing timber supplies, including second and even third-growth timber. The private sector became active after the war, funding smaller laboratories to conduct research on wood products, techniques, and consumers. Many of these small private laboratories con- ducted their research on proprietary products with the research results not released to the public. FPL’s research findings are in the public domain.

Today, FPL conducts basic research work on many wood-related topics, including wood fiber recycling and better utilization of wood products, while continuing the testing of wood fibers and better ways of manufactur- ing wood products and training wood technology researchers from all over the world.

WEEKS ACT OF 1911

Adapted from Terry West’s Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)

Floods, fires, and Forest Service foresters all contributed to the passage of the Weeks Act of 1911, which marked the shift from public land disposal to expansion of the public land base by purchase and was the origin of the eastern national forests. The role played by floods, , and foresters goes back to the beginnings of the conservation movement and professional forestry in the United States. The importance of forests in watershed protec- tion, for example, was an early subject of concern among those who argued for forest reserves.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 37 The place of forests in moderating stream flow was unclear in the early stages of the forest conservation movement, but gained enough credence that “securing favorable conditions of water flows” was defined as a primary function of the newly formed Federal forest reserves in the Forest Manage- ment (Organic) Act of 1897. It may have been the memory of the disastrous Johnstown (PA) flood in 1889 that helped dramatize the consequences of watershed deforestation to people in the East.

Foresters, largely based in the USDA Forest Service, recognized the impor- tance of forests in flood protection–the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not. The Corps’ idea of flood control was dams and levees. Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot felt that the Corps of Engineers’ position undermined one of the key arguments for creating additional forest reserves. Most of the over 150 million acres of forest reserves established by 1907 were in the West. The issue of flood control became important to gain political support for purchase of lands for national forests in the East.

Rain was important to irrigators in the arid West, and urban residents wanted pure drinking water, so these two groups supported watershed pro- tection through creation of forest reserves. It was recreationists in the East, however, who sought creation of additional Federal forests–with supporters of the proposed White Mountain reserve of New England (Maine and New Hampshire, now the White Mountain National Forest established in 1918) working with the regional advocates of Appalachian reserves (who later managed to get a series of national parks for the area in the 1920’s). Enlisted in the effort was Congressman John Weeks (of ), who, in 1906, made a motion in Congress to authorize Federal purchase of private lands for the purpose of forest reserves. The notion of spending public money on recreation sites did not appeal to the powerful Speaker of the House, Joe Cannon, who declared “not one cent for scenery” in the debate against the proposal.

In 1905, the American Forestry Association endorsed the proposal to estab- lish eastern national forests through Federal purchase, and Congress’s defeat of the bill led them and other advocates of forest reserves to shift their argu- ment from nature preservation to utilitarian concerns over flood protection. In the meantime, a need for offered a second reason for the shift of ownership of forest lands to the Federal Government. The lack of fire protection efforts on the part of the private sector and even States made it a national program for the new Forest Service, the reason being that when scientific forestry began in North America its practitioners regarded fire protection to be a fundamental mission of the forestry profession.

With the massive western fires of 1910 accelerating the trend, U.S. public opinion gradually moved toward the forester’s view of the need for wildfire control of forested lands. The 1910 fires in Idaho and Montana burned over 3 million acres and killed over 80 firefighters. Combating these fires cost the Forest Service more than 1 million dollars. Spurred by the costly fires,

38 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Chief Graves initiated a program of scientific research on fire control. Pas- sage of the Weeks Act on March 1, 1911, added to the Forest Service’s fire work. Section 2 of the Weeks Act authorized firefighting matching funds for State forest protection agencies that met Government (Forest Service) standards. This was the first time that Congress allowed direct funding of non-Federal programs, and since it was busy developing cooperative fire control programs, the action greatly increased the task of the agency’s re- cently formed (1908) State and Private Forestry Branch.

Passage of the Weeks Act led to the Federal purchase of forest lands in the headwaters of navigable streams—expanding the National Forest System east of the Great Plains—a region of scant public domain. The Pisgah Na- tional Forest, the first national forest made up almost entirely of purchased private land, was established on October 17, 1916. The core portion of the new forests came from the privately owned Biltmore Forest—once managed by Gifford Pinchot. Land purchases for the Pisgah began in 1911, soon after the passage of the Weeks Act. By 1920, the end of the Graves administra- tion, more than 2 million acres had been purchased; by 1980, purchases and donations based on the Weeks Act added over 22 million acres to the National Forest System.

RESEARCH ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Adapted from Terry West’s 1990 Conference Paper

Gifford Pinchot found it necessary in his first year (1898) as Chief of the Division of Forestry to establish a Section of Special Investigations (Re- search). By 1902, it was an agency division directed by with 55 employees and accounting for one-third of the $185,000 budget. Zon proposed creation of forest experiment stations to decentralize research. The first area experiment station was established in 1908 at Fort Valley on the Arizona Territory’s Coconino National Forest. These stations were Spartan operations designed to serve the needs of the local forest. One exception, however, was the Wagon Wheel Gap Watershed Study in Colorado, a co- operative project with the U.S. Weather Bureau to study the effect of timber removal on water yields.

In 1909, the second pioneer, Carlos Bates, chose a remote site near the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado for the Nation’s first controlled experi- ments on forest-streamflow relations. Little was known of the hydrology of mountain watersheds until Bates’ innovative research on how water moves through soil to sustain streams during rainless periods.

Research’s importance to forest management was formalized in 1915 with the creation of a Branch of Research in the Forester’s (Washington) Office, with future Chief Earle Clapp in charge. It was felt that Research needed

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 39 to be based out of a central office to ensure project planning on a national scale. This move made Research co-equal to the administrative side of the agency. Forest Service Research’s original function was to gather dendrologi- cal and other data needed to manage the national forests. Independence from administrative duties allowed scientists to dedicate more time to research projects, but required the agency to develop a staff of specialists to transfer Research’s technical information into field applications.

Range research began in the USDA’s Department of Botany (1868-1901) and later in the Division of Agrostology. USDA’s Division of Forestry became interested in range research in the summer of 1897 when Frederick Coville carried out the first range investigation on the impact of grazing on the forest reserves of the Oregon Cascades. This important study, the Coville Report (Division of Forestry Bulletin No. 15), was published in 1898 and resulted in Oregon’s forest reserves being reopened for grazing.

In 1907, James Jardine and Arthur Sampson conducted studies to deter- mine the grazing capacity of Oregon’s . The bulk of range research, however, took place in the Intermountain Region at the Experiment Station on Utah’s .

By the 1920’s, the Forest Service had 12 regional research stations with branch field (experimental) stations. Congress passed the McSweeney-Mc- Nary Research Act on May 22, 1928, which legitimatized the experiment stations, authorized broad-scale forest research, and provided appropriations.

One impetus for forestry research in the United States was the limited ap- plicability of European models to the management of U.S. forests, especially in dealing with the threat that fire posed. European forests simply did not experience the fire danger that U.S. forests did. The Forest Service began its research program with Chief Greeley writing that “firefighting is a matter of scientific management just as much as or range improvement.” California District Forester Coert DuBois directed tests of light burning and fire planning and, in 1914, published his classic Systematic Fire Protection in California.

By 1921, the Forest Service dedicated the Missoula, Montana, headquar- ters of the Priest River Forest Experiment Station to fire research. Research head Earle Clapp personally arranged for Harry Gisborne to be assigned to the station. From then until his death during a fire inspection trip of the in 1949, Gisborne worked on fire research. Fire research during the 1920’s was subordinate to administration—research focused on fire control rather than fire itself. Under this pragmatic approach, fire researchers were expected to leave their field plots and statistical compila-

40 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century tions for the fireline. Fire research in the Southern United States focused on the fire rather than fire control, since “light burning” (human-set fires) was still an industrial practice. Thus, research on fire and wildlife management and longleaf pine silviculture was carried on in the Southern Region. When the Forest Service created a separate Division of Fire Research in 1948, one objective was to have a national fire research agenda supervised by forester- engineers and forester-economists.

Although research funding declined in the 1930’s, this was an era when facilities expanded. Programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration provided labor and materials to construct research facilities. By 1935, there were 48 experimental forests and ranges, and their physical plants were being further developed. Forest genetics research received a boost in 1935 when James G. Eddy deeded the Eddy Station to the Government. Inspired by the work of Luther Burbank, lumberman Eddy founded the station in 1925. It is now part of the Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station in California.

Research did not really expand until the post-World War II economic boom and generated funding increases. Employment of large numbers of professional scientists allowed projects in pure research–such as forest genetics and fire spread. In the late 1950’s, the structure of Forest Service Research changed from one of centers to one of projects. Under the new system, a senior scientist led a project and supervised its staff.

Relative to Forest Recreation Research, Chief Cliff noted that the agency was only beginning to explore this new field. In his words, “a rapid expansion of the relatively new and unexplored field of research...will provide a better basis upon which to handle the problems of policy and management of for- est recreation...it is long overdue.” At first, the recreation research program operated within the Division of Forest Economics; it was then shifted to the Division of Range Management Research. In 1959, Harry W. Camp was ap- pointed to be the first head of Forest Service Recreation Research. Between 1963 and 1983, Forest Service recreation research became more clearly defined and gained in popularity and scientific significance.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978, which supplanted McSweeney-McNary Act, revised Research’s charter. Out- side groups put increasing pressure on Forest Service Research to develop baseline studies to guide management of national forest resources. Research became more complicated and, at times, isolated from local needs–a situa- tion that is now changing with the new emphasis on ecosystem-based management and collaborative stewardship.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 41 Recreational Developments

In the Forest Service’s early days, it was against legislation to create a (NPS) to manage the national parks (the act passed Congress in 1916). To counter the recreation component of the new NPS, the Forest Service initiated an extensive outdoor recreation program, including leasing summer home sites and building campgrounds on many national forests. The first Forest Service campground was developed in 1916 at Eagle Creek on the Oregon side of the on the Mt. Hood National Forest. Apparently, the first cooperative campground was constructed in 1918 at Squirrel Creek on the San Isabel National Forest near Pueblo, Colorado, at the time Federal funding was lacking and communities saw the need for better camping and picnicking facili- ties on the national forests.

Campground on the (New Mexico), 1924

USDA Forest Service

RECREATION ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Adapted from E. Gail Throop’s 1989 Conference Paper and L.C. Mer- riam, Jr.’s, article in Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History (1983), Vol. 2: 571-576.

Although recreation was not specifically included in the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, it could be reasonably inferred to be included among the compat- ible uses of the forest reserves. The Organic Act of 1897 and implement-

42 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ing regulations allowed many activities on the forest reserves (renamed as national forests in 1907), including camping and hunting. Most important was the potential for these visitors to start fires: “Large areas of the public forests are annually destroyed by fire, originating in many instances through the carelessness of prospectors, campers, hunters, sheep herders, and oth- ers, while in some cases the fires are started with malicious intent. So great is the importance of protecting forest from fire, that this Department will make special effort for the enforcement of the law against all persons guilty of starting or causing the spread of forest fires in the reservations in viola- tion of the above provisions.” Before the first forest rangers of the General Land Office (GLO) took to the woods in the summer of 1898, picnickers, hikers, mountain climbers, campers, hunters, and anglers—individually and as families and other groups—were among the regular users of the for- est reserves.

The first legislation to recognize recreation in the Forest Reserves was enacted February 28, 1899. The Mineral Springs Leasing Act permitted the building of sanitariums and hotels in connection with developing mineral and other springs for health and recreation. The act stated that regulations will be issued “for the convenience of people visiting such springs, with ref- erence to spaces and locations, for the erection of tents or temporary dwell- ing houses to be erected or constructed for the use of those visiting such springs for health and pleasure.” The revised GLO regulations set forth in the 1902 Forest Reserve Manual stipulated to the right of the public to travel on the forest reserves for pleasure and recreation. However, recreation was considered to be secondary to the need for forest management, especially through grazing opportunities and later through timber harvesting.

In the 1905 Use Book there were statements noting that the national forests served many purposes, some of which were related to early recreation- ists: “The following are the more usual rights and privileges...(a) Trails and roads to be used by settlers living in or near forest reserves. (b) Schools and churches. (c) Hotels, stores, mills, stage stations, apiaries, miners’ camps, stables, summer residences, sanitariums, dairies, trappers’ cabins, and the like....” The 1907 The Use of the National Forests book (public version of the Use Book), included such statements as: “Playgrounds.–Quite incidentally, also, the National Forests serve a good purpose as great playgrounds for the people. They are used more or less every year by campers, hunters, fish- ermen, and thousands of pleasure seekers from the near-by towns. They are great recreation grounds for a very large part of the people of the West, and their value in this respect is well worth considering.”

By 1913, the annual Forest Service report raised the issue of the need for sanitary regulation to protect public health. The report also listed 1.5 mil- lion “pleasure seekers,” of whom a little over 1 million were day visitors, in the 1912-1913 fiscal year. Campers, including those who engaged in hunt-

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 43 ing, fishing, berry or nut picking, boating, bathing, and climbing totaled 231,000 and guests at houses, hotels, and sanatoriums came to 191,000.

The Forest Service undertook development of recreation facilities in the national forests as early as 1916. The first official campground was the Eagle Creek Campground along the Columbia River Highway in Oregon’s Mt. Hood National Forest. It was a “fully modern” facility with tables, toilets, a check-in station, and a ranger station. In the summer of 1919, nearly 150,000 people enjoyed the Eagle Creek facilities.

At the same time, the Forest Service was opposed to the creation of a Na- tional Park Service to administer the national parks. At one time, the Forest Service proposed that it could manage all the national parks, but, obviously, this was not approved by Congress. When the United States Department of the Interior National Park Service was established in 1916, it was given a dual role–preserve natural areas in perpetuity and develop the parks as recreation sites.

Early in 1917, the Forest Service hired Frank A. Waugh, professor of Land- scape Architecture at Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst (now University of Massachusetts) to prepare the first national study of recreation uses on the national forests. Recreation Uses in the National Forests, Waugh’s 1918 report on the status of recreation noted that some 3 million recreation visitors used the national forests each year. He summarized the types of fa- cilities found in the forests—publicly owned developments consisted almost entirely of automobile camps and picnic grounds, while the private sector provided fraternal camps, sanatoria, and commercial summer resorts. In addition there were “several hundred” small of individually owned summer cabins. With the first crude recreation use figures, collected during the summer of 1916, he figured a recreation return of $7,500,000 annu- ally on national forest lands. Waugh did not address winter sports, as it was just beginning on the national forests–as early as 1914, the Sierra Club was conducting cross-country ski outings on California’s .

Although the development of recreation on the national forests was a slow progress during the period from 1919 to 1932, it was not an era with- out controversy and change. Responsive to the need for improved public service, the agency generally supported the idea of professional planning and design. To this end it hired a “recreation engineer,” landscape architect Arthur Carhart, in 1919, to begin recreational site planning. The year 1920 marked the completion of the first forest recreation plan for the San Isabel National Forest in Colorado. Carhart proposed that summer homes and other developments not be allowed at Trappers Lake on the White River National Forest in Colorado. In 1921, he surveyed the Quetico-Superior lake region in Minnesota’s where he recommended only limited development. It eventually became the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

44 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century In 1921, while attending the first National Conference on State Parks, Car- hart discussed national forest recreation uses. He was challenged by Park Service Director Stephen Mather who stated that recreation was the work of the National Park Service, not the Forest Service. Differences of opinion over recreation has been a source of controversy between the agencies for decades. The National Conference on Outdoor Recreation in 1924 criticized the two agencies for over development of their recreation programs. The conference went so far as to accuse the National Park Service of swapping the concept of preserving the Nation’s natural wonders for the concept of the creating a “people’s playground.”

Arthur H. Carhart and Aldo Leopold believed that wilderness was a rec- reational experience unmatched by the drive to develop areas for heavy recreation use. The –the Nation’s first wilderness—was established on the New Mexico’s in 1924. Carhart later wrote that “there is no higher service that the forests can supply to individ- ual and community than the healing of mind and spirit which comes from the hours spent where there is great solitude.”

Early in the decade, while ground was gained on the budgeting front, professional expertise in planning and design was lost. Arthur Carhart resigned because of what he perceived as a lack of support for recreation in the agency–he was not replaced by a person trained in the landscape design disciplines. At the time, only three regions—Northern, Pacific Southwest, and Pacific Northwest—had personnel assigned to recreation duties. Other regions either indicated too little recreation activity to merit specialized per- sonnel or a determination to develop their own forester-recreationists.

Throughout the decade of the 1920’s, the Forest Service pursued a cautious conservative recreation site development policy. Generally, that policy held that the recreation role of the national forests was to provide space for recre- ation. Publicly financed recreation facilities remained limited in number and usually simple in nature. Yet by 1925, there were some 1,500 campgrounds in the national forests. This policy of limited development of national forest recreation sites fit both the philosophical outlook of the forest managers and the budgetary goals of the Coolidge and Hoover Administrations and of Congress.

A National Plan For American Forestry (the Copeland Report) was prepared by the Forest Service in 1933. The section on recreation was written by col- laborator Robert Marshall. In May 1937, Bob Marshall filled the new posi- tion of Chief of the Division of Recreation and Lands. He had a strong and long-lasting influence on recreation policy and development, especially that of wilderness. Using mainly Civilian Conservation Corps labor, the Forest Service built recreation structures from coast to coast. Under Marshall’s guidance, a tremendous variety of facilities were built, many of them elaborate, that were unprecedented in the Forest Service. Facilities such as bathhouses, shelters, amphitheaters, downhill ski areas, and play-

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 45 grounds were part of large recreation complexes. Recreation was established as a national administrative priority of the Forest Service.

Following World War II, Americans aggressively sought an improved qual- ity of life that included active participation in all forms of outdoor recre- ation. The socioeconomic influences of the post-war baby boom, increased affluence, increased leisure time, and improved transportation systems and population mobility led to unprecedented growth in demand for outdoor recreation. Visitors to the national forests were seeking hunting and fishing opportunities, developed campgrounds, downhill ski areas, picnic areas, wilderness experiences, water access, and hiking trails. The supply of recre- ation sites was soon overwhelmed by this demand.

In 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- mission to review the overall outdoor recreation opportunities in the United States. When the final report was printed in 1961, the commission made a number of recommendations that have affected forest recreation. The com- mission recommended passage of the Wilderness Act—which was signed into law in 1964–and the creation of a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Department of the Interior. Interior Secretary Stewart Udall appointed Edward Crafts, former Forest Service Assistant Chief, as the agency’s first director.

At the start of the 1960’s, there was another surge in the national interest in the “great outdoors.” This ushered in the era of growing national recreation interests and the desire for preservation of lands and history. This was also an era when America looked to the Federal Government to solve the Na- tion’s problems and provide for social needs of the citizens. The Wilderness Act of 1964 created the National Wilderness Preservation System. National Recreation and Scenic Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic Trails legislation followed throughout the next two decades.

In 1985, President Reagan established the President’s Commission on America’s Outdoors to review existing outdoor recreation resources and to make recommendations that would ensure the future availability of outdoor recreation for the American people. The thrust of this commission was away from Federal centralism and strongly toward public-private partnerships. The Forest Service response to socioeconomic changes of this period took the form of an exciting and imaginative national initiative, the National Rec- reation Strategy. The preferred tool to meet this strategy was the develop- ment of partnerships between other public and private providers of outdoor recreation. This strategy is operational and significant progress toward the objectives has been made.

46 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Railroad Land Grants

When the Southern Pacific Railroad Company failed to live up to the terms of its 19th century land grant to the Oregon and California (O&C) Railroad (purchased by Southern Pacific), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the remaining unsold grant land must be returned (revested) to the Federal Government. Extensive congressional hearings in 1916 resulted in the return of 2.4 million acres of the heavily forested O&C lands, which today are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service. The Northern Pacific Railroad land grant, across the northern tier of States from Minnesota to Washington, also came under scrutiny by Congress, but ownership remained with the railroad. Interest- ingly, when Mount St. Helens exploded in 1980, the top of the mountain was owned by the railroad–part of the old land grant–and was traded with Forest Service land to establish the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in 1982.

The Pisgah National Forest, the first national forest that was from almost entirely purchased private land, was established on October 17, 1916. The core portion of the new forest came from the privately owned Biltmore Forest (once managed by Gifford Pinchot). Land purchases for the Pisgah began in 1911, soon after the passage of the Weeks Act. World War I and Aftermath

Two U.S. Army Engineer Regiments (10th and 20th Forestry) formed in 1917 and 1918 to fight in Europe during World War I. Many Forest Service employees joined these regiments and after arriving in France were assigned to build saw- mills to provide timbers for railroads and to line trenches. One of their leaders, Lt. Colonel William B. Greeley, later became the third Chief of the Forest Service. Another unique organization formed during the war was the U.S. Army Spruce Production Division. Some 30,000 Army troopers were assigned to Washington and Oregon to build logging railroads and cut spruce trees for airplanes and Douglas-fir for ships. Although the Spruce Division lasted only 1 year (1918- 19), it affected private and public logging operations and unions for the next two decades. Remnants of the spruce railroads can still be found on the in Oregon and the in Washington State, which was then part of the .

While the men were off fighting the war in Europe, women were employed out- doors as fire lookouts on many national forests. Women had worked in clerical positions for many years, but working outdoors was unusual.

In 1919, soon after the war, cooperative agreements between the Forest Service and the Army Air Corps led to experiments using airplanes to patrol for forest fires in California; this use was quickly expanded to the mountainous areas of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 47 U.S. Army’s Spruce Production Division Riving (Split- ting) Tree, Washington, 1918

USDA Forest Service

Before, and for a while after World War I, there were no radios—communica- tions between the lookouts and the ranger station were limited to messages on foot, horseback, and carrier pigeon. Soon, however, an extensive (and expensive) system of field telephones, connected by miles and miles of telephone wires, was used to communicate between the lookouts atop the mountain peaks and the ranger stations in the valleys below.

48 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century These phone systems along major forest trails needed continual maintenance and repair as trees often fell on the No. 9 wire, breaking the connections. Many new forest houses and towers using standardized construction plans were built during the 1920’s. Two-way radios were invented during World War I, and there were many experiments after the war using the new two-way radios in fire detection. These radios eventually made communication much easier and less costly.

Helen Dowe, One of the First Female Lookouts, on the (Colorado)

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 49 Forest Service Air Patrol Airplane at the Eugene, Oregon, Airfield with Lt. De - Garme (Pilot) and Me-

USDA Forest Service

Ranger Using a Heliograph in California, 1912

USDA Forest Service

50 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Mr. Adams Demonstrating the First Wireless Radio Used in the National Forests at the Montana State Fair, Helena, Montana, 1915

USDA Forest Service

HALLIE M. DAGGETT—WOMAN LOOKOUT

Although women have been Forest Service employees since 1905, for many decades very few were hired for field work. Yet as early as 1902, during the General Land Office days, wives (who were not employees) sometimes ac- companied their forest ranger husbands into the wild forests. One of the first accounts of women employed as forest fire lookout comes from California on the . The lookout was Hallie M. Daggett who worked at Eddy’s Gulch Lookout Station atop Klamath Peak in the summer of 1913 (and for the next 14 years). A 1914 article in the American Forestry magazine described her work:

Few women would care for such a job, fewer still would seek it, and still less would be able to stand the strain of the infinite loneliness, or the roar of the violent storms which sweep the peak, or the menace of the wild beasts which roam the heavily wooded ridges. Miss Daggett, however, not only eagerly longed for the station but secured it [the lookout job] after con- siderable exertion and now she declares that she enjoyed the life and was intensely interested in the work she had to do....

Some of the [Forest] Service men predicted that after a few days of life on the peak she would telephone that she was frightened by the loneliness and the danger, but she was full of pluck and high spirit...[and] she grew more and more in love with the work. Even when the telephone wires were broken and when for a long time she was cut off from communication with the world below she did not lose heart. She not only filled the place with all

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 51 the skill which a trained man could have shown but she desires to be reap- pointed when the fire season opens this year [1914]....

[In describing her life as a lookout, Hallie said that] “I grew up with a fierce hatred of the devastating fires and welcomed the [Forest Service] force which arrived to combat them. But not until the lookout stations were installed did there come an opportunity to join what had up till then been a man’s fight; although my sister and I had frequently been able to help on the small things, such as extinguishing spreading camp fires or carrying supplies to the firing line.

“Then, thanks to the liberal mindedness and courtesy of the officials in charge of our district, I was given the position of lookout...with a firm determination to make good, for I knew that the appointment of a woman was rather in the nature of an experiment, and naturally felt that there was a great deal due the men who had been willing to give me the chance.

“It was quite a swift change in three days, from San Francisco, civilization and sea level, to a solitary cabin on a still more solitary mountain, 6,444 feet elevation and three hours’ hard climb from everywhere, but in spite of the fact that almost the very first question asked by everyone was ‘Isn’t it awfully lonesome up there?’ I never felt a moment’s longing to retrace the step, that is, not after the first half hour following my sister’s departure with the pack animals, when I had a chance to look around....I did not need a horse myself, there being, contrary to the general impression, no patrol work in connection with lookout duties, and my sister bringing up my sup- plies and mail from home every week, a distance of nine miles.”

William B. Greeley— Third Chief, 1920-1928

William Buckhout Greeley was born is Oswego, New York, on September 6, 1879. After Gree- ley was appointed Chief in 1920, he faced a number of challenges, including the acquisition of new national forests east of the Mississippi River; making cooperation with private, State, and other Federal agencies a standard feature of Forest Service management; fighting the Government’s renewed efforts to return the For- est Service to the Department of the Interior; and “blocking up” the national forest (exchang- ing or purchasing lands inside or near the forest boundaries to simplify management).

52 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century During his administration, the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924, which extended Federal authority to purchase forest lands and to enter into agreements with the various States to help protect State and private forests from wildfire, became law. This time, the “Roaring Twenties,” was when prosperity brought about tremendous growth in recreation on the national forests and led to the need to develop and improve roads for automobile use, camp- grounds for forest visitors, and summer home sites for semipermanent users.

During this era, the Forest Service also began several important programs to better manage the national forests, including an extensive system of basic and applied research, timber management, recreation, and highways to provide better access to and across the national forests.

William B. Greeley wrote:

The national forests are no longer primeval solitudes remote from the economic life of developing regions, or barely touched by the skirmish line of settlement. To a very large degree, the wilderness has been pressed back. Farms have multiplied, roads have been built, frontier hamlets have grown into and towns, industries have found foothold and expanded. Although the forests are still in an early stage of economic development, their resources are important factors in present prosperity.

There is probably no large area of forest land in the world on which the use and conservation of multiple resources have been so thoroughly studied or so completely developed in practice as on the national forests of the United States…. Nothing bet- ter illustrates the democracy of the American forest policy or the decentralization in administering national forests than the con- scientious effort of the Forest Service to weigh the importance of different uses on each unit and to give every use its merited place in a bewildering regimen of administrative detail.

Timber Sales

The economic boom of the “Roaring Twenties” vastly increased the need for wood products. Many extensive national forest timber sales were authorized, including a 1921 sale of 335 million cubic feet of on Alaska’s . Within a few years, scores of huge timber sales were being made, includ- ing a 1922 sale on the California’s that topped 1 billion board feet. Previously, most timber sales had been for rather small volumes— many of them related to timber beams for mining and ties for railroads. A consid- erable number of the new sales were large railroad logging operations that were geared for lengthy harvesting periods of several decades or longer. The national forests began to play an increasing role in providing timber for the United States.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 53 TIMBER HARVESTING FROM THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Although the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 established Presidential authority to create forest reserves, there was no provision for their management. One of the underlying premises of the act was that the private timber lands were being cut at rates that could not be sustained, especially since was mostly a dream. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 was written, in part, to “furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States....” However, the congressional debate and the 1897 Act’s implementing regulations made it clear that timber cutting was always considered to be permitted, not a required part of forest man- agement. The Organic Act also allowed the General Land Office (GLO) to manage the forest reserves. The first timber sale by the GLO (Case No. 1) was to the Homestake Mining Company for timber off the Black Hills For- est Reserve in 1898. Fifteen million board feet were purchased at a dollar per thousand board feet. The contract required that no trees smaller than eight inches in diameter be removed and that after the harvest the brush left behind had to be “piled.” Thus began the effort to remove billions of board feet of timber from the national forests.

When the management of the forest reserves was moved from the Depart- ment of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture in 1905, Chief Gifford Pinchot was concerned that the reserves (renamed national forests in 1907) should pay for themselves, that is, not be a drain on the U.S. Treasury. The most direct way of showing a profit was by charging for grazing and sell- ing timber. By 1907, timber sold from the national forests amounted to just 950 million board feet, which was only 2 percent of the Nation’s 44 billion board feet cut that year. Pinchot finally gave up by stating “the national forests exist not for the sake of revenue to the Government, but for the sake of the welfare of the public.”

From the late 1910’s and through the 1930’s, there was an emphasis by the Forest Service and outside groups to “sell” the idea of a coming “timber famine.” Based on overcutting in the Great Lake States and elsewhere came the widely espoused notion that the Nation was running out of trees, which would lead to rising cost of housing, mining shutdowns because of lack of mining timbers, railroads without wooden ties, and water diminished for crops. A 1920 Forest Service (“Capper”) report to Congress also warned of forest depletion as a major national problem. Ironically, forest net annual wood growth actually rebounded nationally in 1920, with total forested area about constant from that date, after its severe decline in the 19th cen- tury and first two decades of the 20th. Only 3 years later the Senate passed a resolution (SR 398 on March 7, 1923) to provide for an investigation “re- lating to problems of reforestation, with a view to establishing a comprehen- sive national policy for lands chiefly suited to timber production, in order to insure a perpetual supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizen of the United States.”

54 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Through the 1920’s there were few timber sales, those that were made were usually quite large, selling entire drainages at one time. Other than small operations, the timber sales were designed for railroad logging operations that would harvest the drainages over decades. The timber sales program collapsed in the 1930’s with the advent of the Great Depression.

A pamphlet entitled “Deforested America” (1928) by Major George P. Ahern warned of the risks of depending on private forests and the forest industry for future supplies of timber. Instead, Ahern argued, government control was required to ensure that sustained-yield forestry would be practiced on commercial forest lands. The argument for Federal regulation of private forestry was codified in Article X of the Lumber Code effective on June 1, 1934. Although the code was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court less than a year later, the timber industry was generally supportive of efforts at self-regulation to end widespread forest devastation and to develop coop- eration between industry members and a closer cooperation with the Forest Service.

Due to the defense needs during World War II, timber sales increased in the early 1940’s. The Forest Service began to think about the needs after the war, which saw passage of the Sustained Yield Management Act of 1944. This act allowed the agency to sign agreements with the timber industry and communities to establish either cooperative sustained yield units or Federal units. Only one cooperative unit was ever established (Shelton on the Washington’s Olympic National Forest). Five Federal units were estab- lished in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, and New Mexico.

With the return of the veterans after the war, a baby boom took place (60 million births from 1946 to 1964) during a period of economic growth. This was fueled by low interest rates and massive housing starts. Other Federal agencies answered this call for goods as well. The rapid depletion of old growth timber on private lands in the 1950’s further reinforced the need for increased harvests on Federal lands. During the 1950’s, timber harvests on national forests almost tripled going from about 3 billion board feet in 1950 to almost 9 billion at the end of the decade. The impact was felt most in Pacific Northwest Region, the major producer of softwood timber in the National Forest System.

The Multiple Use Act of 1960 set new priorities for the agency, essentially giving equal footing to the five major resources on the national forests: timber, wildlife, range, water, and outdoor recreation. By the late 1960’s, the Forest Service felt increasing opposition because of major controversies on the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana—involving clearcutting and ter- racing—and Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia—also involving clearcutting. A lawsuit (Izaak Walton v. Butz) was filed on the Monongahela controversy by the Izaak Walton League. A court ruling in 1973 on the case was against the Forest Service practice of timber harvesting under the rules of the Organic Act of 1897. Congressional action was necessary to “fix” the

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 55 law. Congress passed sweeping legislation called the National Forest Man- agement Act of 1976 that pushed deep into the agency’s traditional autono- my with many new requirements and substantive restrictions, almost all of which revolved around timber harvesting.

By the early 1980’s, the findings of decades of important scientific forest re- search provided much needed clues to the long-term health and productiv- ity of the coniferous forests of the Northwest. Because of extensive research carried out on the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest (part of the Willamette National Forest), Jerry Franklin and Chris Maser were able to make some preliminary conclusions that indicated there was more to the forest than the trees. They briefly led the Forest Service into “new forestry” and “new per- spectives” in the search for alternative ways to manage the Federal forests.

In the summer of 1992, the Forest Service embraced a new concept called ecosystem management. Ecosystem management was not a reinterpreta- tion of current field practices to fit a new national agenda, as multiple use generally was. Rather, it is a new goal for the national forests that was more philosophical and addressed the larger societal questions and values sur- rounding the management of the national forests.

Recreation and Wilderness

In the early 1920’s, there was an increasing need for improved recreational facili- ties on the national forests. A good part of this need was caused by the increas- ing use of the forest roads and trails by recreationists’ automobiles. As more cars became cheaper, reliable, and available, more people were willing to spend some of their free time in the mountains, at lakes, and along streams—as long as these areas were easily accessible. Existing roads and highways had to be improved. In this same era, the Forest Service began to use trucks and automobiles—a signifi- cant change from the days of the horse, packhorse, and mule.

Campers at Peralta Canyon near the Superstition Mountains, (Ari- zona), 1938

USDA Forest Service

56 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Numerous special-use recreation resorts, which provided for developed recre- ation facilities in popular areas, began operation on the national forests. Long- term summer home leases were allowed to give people greater use of the national forests. Hundreds of new campgrounds were opened as many thousands of people now owned or had access to automobiles.

Summer Home Along Big Lake on San Ber- nardino Na- tional Forest (California),

1946

USDA Forest Service

One of the Forest Service’s first wilderness advocates was Arthur H. Carhart, a landscape architect. In the late 1910’s and early 1920’s, his innovative ideas, which involved leaving some forest areas intact (no development) for recreational use, received limited support. He proposed that an area around Trapper’s Lake on Colorado’s White River National Forest remain roadless and that summer home applications for that area be denied. He developed a functional plan for the Trapper’s Lake area to preserve the pristine conditions around the lake and convinced his superiors to halt plans to develop the area. Later, he recommended that the lake region of the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota be left in primitive condition and that travel be restricted to canoe. This plan was approved in 1926 and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was dedicated in 1964. Carhart, however, frustrated by what he felt was a lack of support from the Forest Service, resigned in December 1922.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 57 Arthur Carhart in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Su- perior National Forest (Minnesota)

USDA Forest Service

Forest Service Ranger Boat, Tongass Na- tional Forest (Alaska)

USDA Forest Service

58 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Aldo Leopold, author of the Sand County Almanac, however, took up where Carhart left off. In 1922, Leopold made an inspection trip into the headwaters of the Gila River on New Mexico’s Gila National Forest. He wrote a wilderness plan for the area, but faced opposition from his own colleagues who thought that development should take precedence over preservation. His plan was approved in June 1924 and the 500,000-acre area became the first Forest Service wilder- ness—the Gila Wilderness. Leopold transferred to the Forest Products Labora- tory, the same year, and then resigned from the Forest Service in 1928. Five years later he began teaching at the University of Wisconsin, where he had a profound influence on students and the public.

In 1929, the Forest Service published the L-20 Regulations concerning primitive areas that were basically undeveloped areas, many of which would later become wildernesses. Regional Offices were required to nominate possible “primitive areas” that would be maintained in a primitive status without development activities—especially roads. Within 4 years, 63 areas, comprising 8.7 million acres were approved. By 1939, the total acreage in primitive classification had increased to 14 million acres.

Many new forest fire lookouts (houses and towers) were built in the early 1920’s, while two-way radios were becoming more practical and used extensively to communicate during forest fires. The Clarke-McNary Act of 1924, an extension of the Weeks Act, greatly expanded Federal-State cooperation in fire control on State and private lands. Many States formed fire protection associations.

Forestry research came into “full swing” with the establishment of two new ex- periment stations in 1922. Today, there are seven experimental stations scattered across the country, with 72 research work unit locations.

The natural resource controversy of the early 1920’s was over a huge increase in the number of mule on the Grand Canyon Federal Game Preserve (es- tablished in 1906) on Arizona’s . In 1906, the deer herd numbered only about 3,000, but after almost 20 years without being hunted and with predator control, the herd exploded to Gila Wilder- more than 100,000 ani- ness Sign, Gila mals. The Forest Service National Forest sought to reduce the (New Mexico), number of deer on the 1960 refuge to prevent many from starving. In 1924, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court–that ruling allowed the Forest Service to hunt excess deer to protect wildlife habitat.

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 59 Sleeping Beauty Lookout, Columbia National Forest (Washing- ton), 1937

USDA Forest Service

ARTHUR H. CARHART AND THE BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE WILDERNESS

Adapted from Terry West’s Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)

Arthur H. Carhart was a national leader of the early 20th century conserva- tion movement, especially in advocating wilderness areas. He was born in Mapleton, Iowa, in 1892, and received his bachelor’s degree in landscape architecture and city planning from Iowa State College in 1916. He served in the U.S. Army Medical Corps during World War I, then joined the Forest Service as its first landscape architect in 1919.

Arthur Carhart viewed wilderness as a recreational experience and proposed that summer homes and other developments not be allowed at Trappers Lake on the White River National Forest in Colorado. After surveying the Superior National Forest in the Quetico-Superior lake region in 1921, he recommended only limited development and became a strong advocate for wilderness recreation for that roadless area. Carhart later wrote that “there is no higher service that the forests can supply to individual and com- munity than the healing of mind and spirit which comes from the hours spent where there is great solitude. It is significant that people who have experienced the fullness of wilderness living, specifically men of the forests [Forest Service], have initiated and labored for keeping some parts of them as wildland sanctuaries.”

60 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Carhart resigned from the Forest Service in 1922 to practice landscape architecture and city planning in the private sector. His dream to protect wilderness recreation areas from development took the Forest Service 4 more years to accomplish. With Aldo Leopold’s successful effort to have an administrative wilderness established in 1924 on the Gila National Forest, time was ripe for additional wilderness designations on the national forests.

Secretary of Agriculture William H. Jardine signed a plan to protect the Boundary Waters area in 1926, and it was dedicated as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in 1964 with it finally becoming a wilderness in 1978. Chief William Greeley was willing to endorse the concept of wilderness areas and, in 1926, ordered an inventory of all undeveloped national forest areas larger than 230,400 acres (10 ). Three years later, wilder- ness policy assumed national scope with the promulgation of the L-20 regu- lations. Commercial use of the areas (grazing, even logging) could continue, but campsites, meadows for pack stock forage, and special scenic “spots” would be protected. It would take many years until a national wilderness policy, set by Congress, would be enacted as the Wilderness Act of 1964.

In 1938, Carhart was appointed director of the Colorado program for Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. He wrote numerous articles, many for the , the publication of the American Forestry Association. He also wrote a number of books on conservation matters including: The Outdoorsman’s Cookbook (1944), Fresh Water Fishing (1950), Water—or Your Life (1951), Timber in Your Life (1955), Trees and Game—Twin Crops (1958), and The National Forests (1959).

ALDO LEOPOLD AND “THE LAND ETHIC”

Rand Aldo Leopold was born on January 11, 1887, in Burlington, Iowa. Aldo–he never used his first name–was the oldest of four children. He loved to hunt, fish, and explore the bluffs, forests, marshes, lakes, and fields along the nearby Mississippi River. His father, Carl Leopold, taught Aldo differ- ent ways to see nature firsthand. Aldo’s love of the out-of-doors did not sit well with his grades during the second part of his high school years that he spent at the Lawrenceville Preparatory School near Princeton, New Jersey. Writing to his mother, Clara, in 1904, Aldo mentioned that “I have flunked Geometry....” However, he did finish prep school and went on to attend Sheffield Scientific School at Yale in New Haven, Connecticut, the following year. In 1906, Leopold began his forestry course work at the Yale School of Forestry, which had been founded by a grant from James Pinchot. Leopold received his B.S. degree in 1908 from the Sheffield School and then gradu- ated in 1909 with a masters of forestry.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 61 Soon after graduation he joined the Forest Service and was assigned as a forest assistant to the new Southwestern District (now region). A month later, he was in charge of a timber reconnaissance crew on the Apache Na- tional Forest in the Arizona Territory when he saw “a fierce green fire” in the eyes of a dying old wolf. He never forgot that haunting look and it affected his thoughts for the rest of his life. By 1911, Leopold had been promoted to deputy forest supervisor and, a year later, he was promoted to Supervisor of the in the New Mexico Territory. In 1912, Aldo mar- ried Estella Bergere from Santa Fe, New Mexico (they would have five chil- dren together–Starker, Luna, Nina, Carl, and Estella). In 1913, he almost died of an attack of acute nephritis. It was during his almost 17-month recovery that he wrote about setting aside remote areas for special protec- tion based on wilderness as part of the national heritage and the importance of studying nature in a pristine setting.

In 1914, Leopold was assigned to the Office of Grazing in the Forest Service Southwestern District Office (D-3) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. While working on recreation, fish and game, and publicity for the district (Arizona and New Mexico) less than a year later, he wrote a report recommending that game refuges be established in the district and, then, a Game and Fish Handbook–the first such direction in the Forest Service. Leopold’s grow- ing concern about studying nature in natural, undisturbed settings arose through his exposure to the new science of . (Ecology as an area of academic study was formed in 1915 when the Ecological Society of America was founded.) He began his life’s work on wildlife management issues, including game refuges, law enforcement, and predator control, as well as founding a number of big game protective associations in New Mexico and Arizona. Because of these interests, he won the W.T. Hornaday’s Permanent Wildlife Protection Fund’s Gold Medal in 1917.

In 1918, Leopold took a leave of absence from the Forest Service and served as the Secretary of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce. He returned to the Forest Service the next year as Assistant District Forester for Operations in the Southwestern Region. While in this role, Leopold developed new and efficient procedures for handling personnel matters, fire-control methods, and forest inspection procedures over some 20 million acres of national for- est land. He made a number of important contributions to the soil erosion problems in southwestern watersheds.

Concerned with the rapid pace of road expansion after World War I, Leop- old recommended that roads and use permits be excluded on the Gila River headwaters on the Gila National Forest in 1922. In the early 1920’s, he was responsible for laying the groundwork for the Gila Wilderness. Established in 1924 as a 500,000-acre wilderness area, the Gila Wilderness was the first administrative wilderness in the National Forest System. Although his plan was approved, it was only a local policy, not national. Leopold left the Southwest in 1924 to serve as the assistant, then Associate Director of the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin.

62 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Leopold was unhappy at the Laboratory and resigned from the Forest Ser- vice in 1928 to take the lead in establishing a new profession–game man- agement–which he modeled on the profession of forestry. His game survey of nine Midwestern States was funded by the Sporting Arms and Ammuni- tion Manufacturers’ Institute. These surveys were summarized in his 1931 Report on a Game Survey of the North Central States. Leopold’s book Game Management, published in 1933, was based in part on his game survey work and helped define a new field of managing and restoring wildlife popula- tions. Soon after the publication of his book, Leopold accepted an appoint- ment to a new chair in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Wisconsin. Although Leopold spent the next several decades with wildlife management issues, his interests expanded to the field of ecol- ogy, where he is most revered today.

In January 1935, Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, Benton Mackaye, Harvey Broome, Barnard Frank, Anderson, Ernest Oberholtzer, and Sterling Yard founded the Wilderness Society. Leopold spent the fall of that year in Germany on a Carl Schurz fellowship studying forestry and wildlife man- agement. During that same year he purchased a small, worn-out farm along the Wisconsin River—north of Baraboo, Wisconsin, in an area known as the “sand .” This was where the family (wife Estella and their five children) rebuilt the only standing structure on the property–the chicken coop–into a small cabin. This cabin became famous as “The Shack.” Trying to restore the health of the land, he planted thousands of trees on the prop- erty, slowly changing abandoned fields to a growing forest and restoring a low area into a wetland where waterfowl came flocking in to feed and rest. Daughter Nina wrote “as he transformed the land, it transformed him. By his own actions and transformation, Aldo Leopold instilled in his children [and students] a love and respect for the land community and its ecological functioning.” He used the farm to observe and write about nature. Graduate students were brought to “The Shack” many times to observe and discuss ecological matters. In 1936, Leopold helped found a society of wildlife spe- cialists (it became the Wildlife Society in 1937).

His philosophy began to shift to a more ecological approach in the late 1930’s. Susan L. Flader, in a biography of Leopold, characterized this shift: “Originally imbued like other early conservationists with the belief that man could rationally control his environment to produce desired commodities for his own benefit, Leopold slowly developed a philosophy of naturally self-regulating systems and an ecological concern with the land and a land ethic.” It was a new way of thinking and acting toward the land. Leopold wrote about nature and people and that living with the land required a new or complete understanding of the interrelationship among all creatures. Author Amy McCoy noted that he “added unprecedented insight into the world of ecology and naturalism. He moved from believing in partial par- ticipation in nature, to the view that total integration is absolutely necessary to the healthy existence of the natural world, and of humans.” This would

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 63 become the basis, still with us today, of a profound reverence for nature and the role that people play in the environment–a land ethic for people.

In 1939, the University of Wisconsin created a new department, the Depart- ment of Wildlife Management, with Leopold as its first chair. He held this position until his death. The new science and profession of wildlife manage- ment wove together the related fields of forestry, agriculture, ecology, biol- ogy, zoology, and education. He believed that people, who often destroyed landscapes, could use the same tools to help rebuild the land. Just before World War II, Leopold began working on a manuscript of ecological essays. It took several attempts to write and rewrite the volume, entitled Great Pos- sessions, which was finally accepted for publication by the Oxford Univer- sity Press on April 14, 1948.

While at “The Shack” vacation home, smoke was spotted across the swamp on a neighbor’s farm. Leopold gathered his family, handed out buckets and brooms, and went with them to put out the fire. While fighting the fire, Aldo Leopold died of a heart attack at the age of 61 on April 21, 1948.

His ecological essays book was retitled and published as A Sand County Almanac in 1949. Over his lifetime, Leopold was involved with more than 100 organizations, many of which he served as an officer, president, or chair. Although Leopold, a gifted writer, wrote more than 350 articles, it was the books that he wrote—two of which were published posthumously (edited by Luna B. Leopold)—that have influence today: A Sand County Almanac (1949) and Round River, from the Journal of Aldo Leopold (1953). A Sand County Almanac has sold millions of copies and is regarded as a classic with well-worn paperback copies in backpacks and book shelves across the country. Leopold has gained the status as a prophet of the environmen- tal movement and his legacy continues to the present, with scores of new books and articles appearing every year about him and his work.

Robert Y. Stuart— Fourth Chief, 1928-1933

Robert Young Stuart was born in the Southern Middleton , Cumberland County, Penn- sylvania, on February 13, 1883. He was appointed Chief in 1928 after the resignation of Chief Gree- ley. During his tenure, the McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928 promoted forest research, while the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 was designed to expand on the national forests.

Stuart was instrumental in preparing the Forest

64 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Service to deal with the crises caused by the stock market crash of 1929. He led the Forest Service in creating job opportunities for the unemployed on national forests, especially those working on Forest Service road systems. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Civilian Conser- vation Corps in the spring of 1933 to relieve the severe economic stress among young unemployed men, the Forest Service was ready with a long list of projects.

Robert Y. Stuart wrote:

The importance of recreational use as a social force and influ- ence must be recognized and its requirements must be met. Its potentialities as a service to the American people, as the basis for industry and commerce, as the foundation of the future econom- ic life of many communities, are definite and beyond question. Its rank in national forest activities will, in large degree, be a ma- jor one and, in a limited degree, a superior one. It will in many situations constitute a use of natural resources coordinate and occasionally be paramount to their industrial conversion to com- mercial commodities, and as a recognized form of use of natural resources, it deserves and should receive the same relative degree of technical attention and administrative planning that is now given to other forms of utilization.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 65 The Great Depression Era, 1933-1942

he Great Depression is generally thought to have started in the fall of 1929 with the New York stock market crash. It did not take long for T the entire country to be hard hit by the crash. Because of low wood prices and lack of demand, timber sales declined, hundreds of timber companies went bankrupt, and tens of thousands of employees lost their jobs. Federal Govern- ment workers took pay cuts, but remained working. Civilian Conservation Corps

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), brainchild of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “,” began in April 1933 to revive the lagging economy and marked a renewed interest in the conservation of natural resources. The CCC, founded to provide outdoor work for millions of young unemployed men, later was expanded to include World War I veterans and American Indian tribal mem- bers. The first CCC camp, appropriately named Camp Roosevelt, began opera- tion in the late spring of 1933 on Virginia’s George Washington National Forest. Thousands of other camps were established in national and State parks and refuges, national monuments, soil conservation districts, and other areas.

CCC Camp Roosevelt, George Washington National For- est (Virginia), 1933

USDA Forest Service

Fortunately, the Forest Service was prepared for these conservation workers. The massive 1,677-page, A National Plan for American Forestry (also called the Copeland Report), published a few months previously, had suggested a compre- hensive plan for more intensive management of all the National Forest System lands. Included in the report were hundreds of projects that needed money or

66 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century people to complete them. The CCC program was the ideal opportunity for young men (there were no women’s camps) to be engaged in outdoor projects that would help improve the recreation potential and management of the national forests. Through the entire 9-year program, more than 3 million men enrolled for 6 months or longer in the over 2,600 camps (200 men per camp). Each national forest had at least one CCC camp. That enabled hundreds of work projects to begin, many of which were recreational facilities, especially trails, trail shelters, campgrounds, and scenic vistas. The CCC’s also worked on truck trails (roads), guard and ranger stations, lookouts, and telephone lines, and they fought many forest fires (nearly 6.5 million person days).

CCC Alaska Na- tive Enrollee Joe Thomas Working on Baranof Pole at Wrangell, Alaska, Tongass National Forest, 1941

USDA Forest Service

CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS (1933-1942)

The year was 1933. The Nation was floundering in an economic depres- sion, deeper than any it had ever known. Over 13 million Americans, about one-third of the available workforce, were out of work. People had noth- ing to do, nowhere to go, and often felt hungry, bewildered, apathetic, and angry. Young men were especially vulnerable as they were often untrained, unskilled, unable to gain experience, and often without an adequate educa- tion. They had little hope for the future. In this sad, tumultuous time, Con- gress passed an act that was to have great impact for unemployed young men and natural resource management.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 67 On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. His “New Deal” program helped put people back to work. He quickly placed legislation before Congress to put ten of thousands of unemployed young men to work in the public forests and parks. On March 31, 1933, just 10 days after Roosevelt proposed it, Congress passed the Emergency Conser- vation Work Program (Public Law 73-5) popularly known as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Four years later, on June 28, 1937, the CCC name was officially attached to an act that continued the program. (Similar Federal work programs were established during the 1930’s, including the Works Progress Administration which focused on arts, music, literature, history, and other related activities.)

The act establishing the CCC had two purposes: The most important was the need to find immediate and useful conservation work for millions of unemployed young men; the second was to provide for the restoration of the country’s depleted natural resources and the advancement of an orderly program of useful public works projects. The CCC also provided educa- tional training, and beginning in 1940, vocational training, to its enrollees. The program was directed by Robert Fechner, until his death on January 1, 1940, thereafter by James McEntee.

Eligibility requirements to join the CCC were handled by the U.S. De- partment of Labor and State selection organizations. CCC enrollees were required to be—

• Male citizens of the United States or its • Between 18 and 25 years of age • Unemployed and not in regular attendance at school • Unmarried • Of good character and physical condition

These young men were officially referred to as juniors. There were three other categories of CCC enrollees:

• Veterans of World War I, who could be older than 25 • American Indians, who worked mostly on their Indian Reservations • Locally employed men (LEM), who were usually experienced older men who served as trainers to the young men

There were no camps for women, although suggested that there should be. Black enrollees were generally separated from white enrollees with segregated CCC companies and camps. In any case, the enrollees were required to set aside $25 of their monthly $30 paycheck to assist their dependents (usually their parents).

The CCC enrollment period was for 6 months, with options for renewal. The CCC “boys” were often assigned, initially, to the Forest Service or

68 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century National Park Service to work on conservation projects. Later, a number of CCC camps were established for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, State forests and parks, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service), Biological Survey (later Fish & Wildlife Service), Bureau of Recla- mation, General Land Office (now Bureau of Land Management), U.S. Army and Navy, and even some private demonstration forests. The U.S. Depart- ment of Labor and the U.S. Army handled CCC monthly pay, as well as travel to and from the often remote CCC camps.

A CCC company usually consisted of 200 enrollees, with most of them coming from one city or county within a State. When the CCC men ar- rived, usually by train then truck, at their assigned CCC camp, they lived in comfortable World War I surplus pyramid tent frames or wooden barracks. The camp commander was usually a career military officer, or, later in the program, a reserve officer. On various projects, smaller work camps (called side or spike camps) were established so that the men did not spend all of their project time getting to or from the work site.

The CCC men ate plain but wholesome food, which was purchased locally. They worked 40 hours per week and were required to keep their camps neat and orderly. Beyond that, they were free to study or enjoy any outdoor recreation opportunities such as swimming or fishing. During the summer months, the CCC boys were often treated to weekend trips to beautiful mountain lakes, national parks, or the coast. At other times, the local com- munities took pleasure in providing facilities for meeting the local citizens, dancing, and having good times. Some of the young men, products of the Great Depression and coming from all parts of the country and all walks of life, later stayed in or returned to the community that had served as their temporary home away from home. Many of the CCC men who stayed went on to become prominent foresters, businessmen, and even State legislators.

Throughout CCC’s history (1933-1942), the number of conservation proj- ects completed across the Nation was staggering: 48,060 bridges; 13,513 cabins and dwellings; 10,231 fire lookout houses and towers; 360,449 miles of telephone lines; 707,226 miles of truck trails (forest roads); 142,102 miles of foot and horse trails; 101,777 acres of campground de- velopment; 35.8 million rods of fences; 168 emergency landing fields; 13.3 million acres of insect control work; 6.4 million man-days of fighting forest fires; over 2.6 million acres of planting and seeding; and almost 1 billion fish stocked.

As national economic conditions improved in the late 1930’s, enrollment quotas became more and more difficult to fill. Then on December 7, 1941, America became directly involved in the war that had been raging in Europe for more than 2 years. Within 6 months, the CCC era came to a close as enrollees flocked to join the military and the remaining camps were shut down. The program’s funding was terminated on June 30, 1942.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 69 So ended one of the most successful work recovery programs in the his- tory of the United States. The CCC was the most popular and successful of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. Perhaps the most significant product of the CCC program was the profound and lasting effect it had on the 3 million enrollees. CCC work provided a turning point in the lives of many of the Nation’s youth and it brought much-needed financial aid to their families. In addition, it created a new self-confidence, a desire and capacity to return to active work, a new understanding of a great country, and a faith in its fu- ture. The national forests, national parks, and State parks decades later still enjoys benefits from many of the CCC projects.

Ferdinand A. Silcox— Fifth Chief, 1933-1939

Ferdinand Augustus Silcox was born on Christ- mas Day in 1882, in Columbus, Georgia. The Great Depression was in full-swing when Silcox took over as Chief in 1933; he led the Forest Service during some of its most difficult times. He was able to effectively help millions of un- employed workers thrive during the Depression through the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress Administration projects on the national forests. The Forest Service provid- ed space to 200-man CCC camps (there were no women in the program), thousands of work projects, and experienced project leaders. More than 2.5 million unemployed young men enrolled in the CCC during its 9-year existence.

Silcox’s contributions to the forest conservation movement were many, but especially significant was his success in focusing public attention on the conservation problems of private forest land ownership. During his tenure, the Forest Service studied western range use and surveyed forest watersheds for flood control.

Ferdinand A. Silcox wrote:

Civilizations have waxed and waned with their material resourc- es; dwindling means of livelihood have set rolling great tidal waves of migration and have been a prolific cause of domestic disorder, class uprising, and international war; but never before have the people of a great country still rich in the foundations of prosperity sought to forestall future disaster by applying a national policy of conservation—of which planned land use is the central core.

70 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Shelterbelt Project

In response to the “Dust Bowl” conditions in the Great Plains between Texas and North Dakota during the early 1930’s, the cooperative Prairie States Forestry (Shelterbelt) Project was begun. This unique windbreak project, an idea of Presi- dent Franklin Roosevelt, began in 1934. In March 1935, the first tree was planted on a farm in Mangum, Oklahoma. The project involved extensive cooperation between the USDA Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conserva- tion Service); various State, county, and local agencies; and hundreds of farmers. Legions of Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief workers, many of whom were unemployed farmers, accomplished the work. In the spring of 1938, they planted approximately 52,000 cottonwood trees in one severely sand-blown area south of Neligh, Nebraska.

Major Plant- ing Areas of the Prairie States For- estry (Shelterbelt) Project, 1935-1942

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 71 The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 ended unregulated grazing on the national forests and remaining GLO-administered land. The act authorized the creation of 80 million acres of grazing districts and the establishment of a U.S. Grazing Service—combined with the GLO in 1946 to form the BLM in the Department of the Interior. In 1935, the title “Chief” of the Forest Service came back into use.

Ranger and Permittee on an Inspection at the Tatoosh Mountain Range, Gifford Pinchot Na- tional Forest (Washington), 1949

USDA Forest Service

SHELTERBELT PROGRAM ON THE GREAT PLAINS

During the great “Dust Bowl” of the 1930’s on the Great Plains, millions of acres of farm land were literally being blown away. In the dry, rainless condition, soil was lost at a horrendous rate and many farmers and ranch- ers were forced from their land. Dust and dirt filled the air and sands were drifting across fields, covering fences and houses, and killing animals. By the early 1930’s, one of many practices the Great Plains Agricultural Coun- cil proposed to slow or halt the damage was the planting of trees to reduce wind and drought-caused soil erosion.

72 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century In the summer of 1932, then Presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed that the Federal Government begin a program of planting trees in belts across the hardest hit farm lands on the Great Plains. To reduce wind erosion and protect crops from wind damage, millions of trees were planted on private property or “shelterbelts,” as they became known. Under Roosevelt’s Administration from 1934 to 1942, the program both saved the soil and relieved chronic employment in the region.

The Forest Service was responsible for organizing the “Shelterbelt Project,” later known as the “Prairie States Forestry Project.” This project, head- quartered in Lincoln, Nebraska, was directed by Paul H. Roberts from the Research Branch. The Shelterbelt Program included the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and the northern part of Texas.

Trees were usually planted in long strips at 1-mile intervals within a belt 100 miles thick. It was felt that shelterbelts at this spacing could intercept the prevailing winds and reduce soil and crop damage. The project used many different tree species of varying heights, including oaks and even black walnut. Shelterbelts, with trees and of varying heights, could reduce wind velocities on their leeward sides for distances of 15 times the height of the tallest trees. Reduced winds tended to create more favorable conditions for crop growth, reduce evaporation of water in the soil (and thus reduce the need for irrigation), reduce soil temperatures, stabilize soils, protect livestock, increase wildlife populations, and provide a more livable environment for farm families.

One of the project’s first tasks was to obtain tree and seeds and then to establish nurseries to grow the stock for replanting. Funding for the project almost ended in 1936, but Agriculture Secretary Wallace pushed Congress for a continuation. On May 18, 1937, the Norris-Doxy Coopera- tive Farm Forestry Act expanded the shelterbelt project by requiring greater Federal-State cooperation.

Although Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps workers planted the trees and shrubs, landowners were responsible for their long-term care and maintenance. During 1939, the peak year of the project, 13 nurseries produced more than 60 million seedlings. Over the project’s duration, over 200 million trees and shrubs were planted on 30,000 farms– a total length of 18,600 miles in all! The shelterbelts worked amazingly well and the results can be seen even today, although many of the shelterbelt trees have been cut for their highly valued wood.

Since 1942, tree planting to reduce soil losses and crop damage has been carried out by local soil conservation districts in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service).

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 73 GRAZING ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Adapted from Terry West’s Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)

From the beginning of European settlement along the eastern and southern coasts of what was to become the United States, domestic livestock has been a prominent part of farming and grazing activities of New World settlers. For many decades, stock animals were free to roam over the unsettled areas along the edge of farm lands newly cleared from the forests. As the settlers moved westward, the size of the unsettled forest area was much reduced and public domain land “taken up” by homesteaders.

Controversy soon erupted when cattle interests sought to have sheep and homesteads prohibited from “open ranges” (public domain). Conversely, sheep owners and farmers wanted cattle restricted from grazing and tram- pling their crops and destroying their water sources. The situation was simi- lar on the public domain timberland, but that changed after forest reserves were created in 1891.

Western ranchers were some of the strongest opponents of the creation of the forest reserves because they feared that grazing would be prohibited on them, perhaps rightly so. Concerned with erosion and other problems caused by overgrazing, the Secretary of the Interior banned grazing on Fed- eral forest reserves in 1894.

After a rapid growth in cattle ranches in the 1870’s and 1880’s, the indus- try had declined so much by the year 1900 that sheep outnumbered cattle in most Western States. The woolgrowers were the West’s best organized interest group. The battle of grazing pitted sheep raisers and their support- ers in Congress against the Department of the Interior and the cattle ranch- ers—dependent on upland forest watersheds.

Although John Muir (founder of the Sierra Club) referred to sheep as “hoofed locusts,” he acknowledged that regulated grazing was better than unregulated grazing. As early as 1896, Gifford Pinchot favored regulated sheep grazing on the forest reserves. Frederick V. Coville’s independent study of sheep grazing in the Oregon Cascades during the summer of 1897 left no doubt that regulated grazing was less destructive to the forests than unregulated grazing—especially to young trees. Pinchot had similar inves- tigations made in the Southwest. The official Federal policy, developed in 1898, allowed restricted sheep grazing in the Oregon Cascades and extend- ed eventually to all the other forest reserves. Cattle and horses were allowed to range freely. In 1900, the Department of the Interior established a free permit system to control the number of animals on the forest reserves and remaining public domain land.

74 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Grazing continued the same after the transfer of the forest reserves to the Department of Agriculture and the new Forest Service in 1905. In 1906, the Forest Service announced that fees would be imposed: 25 to 35 cents per head of cattle and horses, with a lower rate for sheep and goats. Although free-ranging hogs were a problem in some areas, there were no fees an- nounced for hog grazing. Forest rangers set up new grazing allotments with set dates for entering and leaving the forest reserves. The grazing revenues exceeded those from timber every year between 1906 and 1910, and pe- riodically until 1920. In 1910, the Forest Service established an Office of Grazing Studies, which began studying the effects of grazing on the national forests.

In 1917, with the United States’ entry into World War I, the number of animals that grazed on the national forests increased dramatically. Grazing was even allowed in and Yosemite National Parks. Studies of the increasing numbers of sheep and cattle being grazed on national forests during the 1917-1919 period showed severe overgrazing. Range conditions were so poor that sheep permittees were unable to produce the amount of lamb meat that they expected. The issue of carrying capacity of the range was controversial because it determined how many animals a rancher could place on Government land.

The bulk of the research on range management took place at the Great Basin Experimental Station (Intermountain Research Station) on the Manti National Forest outside of Ephraim, Utah. Historian Thomas Alexander claimed that professional range management emerged in the Forest Service largely as the result of the Intermountain Station’s grazing research staff. The typical district ranger was often concerned about the social and economic costs to local ranchers if they were forced to reduce stock numbers; while range researchers focused on the condition of the land. Over time it was the condition of the land that determined the policy, based on their research findings on carrying capacity. In the end, the numbers of animals on the national forests were reduced, except during World War II.

Controversy over grazing fees (which continues to this day) resulted in a 1924 Forest Service report on public and private fees. Stock owners imme- diately expressed objections to the study, leading to congressional hear- ings and passage of the McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, which enhanced research activities on public and private forest and range land. During the Great Depression grazing fees were lowered by 50 percent. The western drought in the early 1930’s and the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 tightened public land grazing regulations. An interagency rivalry over which agency could best administer and regulate grazing led to the creation of the U.S. Grazing Service in the Department of the Interior to “counter” Forest Service attempts to take over grazing management on all public lands.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 75 World War II saw another attempt to expand the number of animals grazing on the national forests. The Forest Service resisted this effort. The Forest Service reduced the number of animals allowed on the national forests in order to increase the quality of the grazing lands. This plan met strong op- position and the controversy resulted in the Granger-Thye Act of 1950. In essence, Granger-Thye recognized the Forest Service’s authority to collect fees for grazing privileges and endorsed grazing advisory boards, as long as representatives from the State game commissions were members, allowed cooperative range improvements, and allowed 10-year grazing permits to be issued.

In the 1960’s, controversy was again stirring over grazing fees. By the late 1970’s, this resulted in the “Sagebrush Rebellion” in the Western States. Supporters of the Sagebrush Rebellion wanted all Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing lands transferred to the States. They assumed that if such lands were under State control, the ranchers would have more influence and thus get their own way over fees, allotments, and number of animals grazed. Because of local and national opposition, the Sagebrush Rebellion lost momentum, then stalled, and finally died by the mid-1980’s only to be revived in the 1990’s. This movement today is called the “wise use,” “county supremacy,” or “property rights movement.”

Wilderness

Robert Marshall, founder of the Wilderness Society and author of the recreation portion of the National Plan for American Forestry (the Copeland Report), worked for the Forest Service in the mid-1930’s. He proposed that the Forest Service in- ventory large unroaded areas that might be suitable for wildernesses or primitive area designation. Shortly before his untimely death in 1939, Marshall and several others made a tour of the western national forests, performing this inventory and making recommendations to regional foresters to greatly increase the number of wilderness and primitive areas.

Bob Marshall Examining Pine and Larch Seedlings, Priest River Experimental Station, (Idaho)

Wilderness Society

76 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ROBERT MARSHALL

Adapted from Terry West’s Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)

Robert Marshall (1901-1939) was the son of , one of the Nation’s most prominent constitutional lawyers, social reformers, and de- fenders of the Adirondack State Park in New York. As a young man, Robert Marshall spent his summers at Lower Saranac Lake at his family’s estate. His first book, High Peaks of the Adirondacks, was published in 1922. His love of nature and exploration influenced his college studies in forestry. Marshall received his B.S. degree from the New York State College of Forestry at Syracuse University (now called the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry) in 1924, then a Masters of Forestry from Harvard Forest (part of Harvard University) in 1925, and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from Johns Hopkins University in 1930.

Bob Marshall worked for the Forest Service at the Wind River Forest Ex- periment Station near Carson, Washington, during the summer of 1924 as a “field assistant.” After earning his masters in forestry degree, he worked for the Forest Service, again, from 1925 to 1928 at the Northern Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station at Missoula, Montana. After leaving the Forest Service to earn his doctorate, he again joined the Forest Service in 1932 to 1933, working on the recreation portion of the National Plan for American Forestry (the Copeland Report) (1933). In that report, Marshall foresaw the need to place 10 percent of all U.S. forest lands into recreational areas—ranging from large parks to wilderness areas to roadside campsites. In the same year, he became the Director of Forestry for the Office of Indian Affairs, where he supported roadless areas on reservations.

In 1937, Bob Marshall returned to the Forest Service as Chief of a new Divi- sion of Recreation and Lands in the Washington Office. In his short tenure at the Washington Office, he drafted the “U Regulations” that replaced the “L-20 Regulations” for primitive areas and wildernesses. These regulations gave greater protection to wilderness areas by banning timbering, road construction, summer homes, and even motorboats and aircraft. Marshall checked recreational development plans for the national forests to see if they included access for lower income groups—a very real concern during the Depression years of the 1930’s. He also thought that protection should be granted to large areas over 200,000 acres–that they should be reclassified as primitive areas. In 1938, he and others made a trip through the western national forests to map and propose millions of acres of national forest lands for primitive or wilderness status.

Marshall was an eccentric and maverick who was famed at the time for both his vigorous 40-mile hikes and radical political opinions. Marshall was famous for his hiking speed—once walking 70 miles in a 24-hour period to make connections for a trip—while at other times easily outdistancing his

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 77 companions on trips into the mountains. Bob Marshall was a leading writer on the social management of American forests, both public and private, combining conservation with social theory. He, along with Gifford Pinchot, George P. Ahern, and three others, signed a letter in 1930 that recommend- ed increased Federal and State regulation over private forests and transfer of private lands to public ownership and control. For the next 15 years, this issue would be raised by various Forest Service Chiefs, but Congress would not approve. Unable to endure the diplomacy of working within the bu- reaucracy, he had planned to resign. While on a train from Washington, DC, to , he had a heart attack and died on November 10, 1939. The following year, the Forest Service reclassified and renamed a 950,000- acre area (comprised of three primitive areas) on the Flathead and Lewis and Clark National Forests in Montana as the Bob Marshall Wilderness.

A prolific writer, Marshall published a number of articles and pamphlets, as well as several books, including: The People’s Forests (1933), Arctic (1933), and Arctic Wilderness (1956). Marshall was the principal founder and financial supporter of the Wilderness Society in 1935.

Timber Salvage of 1938

Timber sales, which practically disappeared during the Great Depression, started again just before World War II. Millions of trees were blown down by the Great New England Hurricane of September 1938. The Forest Service directed massive salvage operations on national forest, State, and private lands. More than 50 CCC camps and 15,000 WPA enrollees worked feverishly to salvage the downed trees to prevent insect and disease infestations and prevent fires from starting in the dried trees. During the 3 years that followed, the Northeastern Timber Salvage Administration was able to salvage 700 million board feet of timber.

New England Hurricane Results, New Hampshire, 1938

USDA Forest Service

78 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Smokejumping and National Defense

Because many of the forest fires in the West were started by lightning in inacces- sible locations, the Forest Service experimented with firefighters parachuting to fires before they became large and out of control. The first experimental “jumps” began in 1939 at Winthrop, Washington, on the Okanogan National Forest. By the summer of 1940, the smokejumpers, as they became known, were operating out of Winthrop and the Moose Creek Ranger Station on Montana’s Bitterroot Na- tional Forest and made their first jump on a fire on the Nezperce National Forest in Idaho. The successful operation proved that smokejumping into remote, rug- ged areas was feasible. The lessons learned from training methods and actually jumping into heavily forested areas would prove useful to the new military paratrooper units like the 101st Airborne during World War II.

National defense became important in Smokejumpers the late 1930’s and Ready for Ex- early 1940’s. The first perimental Jumps, conscientious objector Chelan National camps were estab- Forest lished at abandoned (Washington),1939 CCC camps in 1941. World War II started for the United States on December 7, 1941. In early 1942, the CCC’s were disbanded because fewer men were signing up and national attention (and money) was USDA Forest Service being diverted to the war effort.

Earle H. Clapp— Sixth Chief, 1939-1943

Earle Hart Clapp, born in North Rush, New York, on October 15, 1877, was appointed Associate Chief in 1935, then Acting Chief in 1939 after Chief Silcox died. Clapp was never officially Chief, apparently because President Roosevelt did not want to approve his appoint- ment. Clapp served in this acting capacity until 1943 when Lyle Watts was appointed the Forest Service’s seventh Chief.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 79 During Clapp’s time as Acting Chief, he faced the continuation of the Civil- ian Conservation Corps projects on the national forests, meeting the need for forest experts to help in the aftermath of the disastrous New England Hurricane, opposing transfer of the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior, and mobilizing the Nation’s forest resources behind the World War II effort. The cutting of national forest timber was stepped up, special studies and tests were made for the armed forces, and forest lookout stations were staffed along both the east and west coasts in 1942-1943 to detect enemy aircraft.

Try as he did, Clapp was not successful in supporting Federal regulation of timber cutting on private forest land, adding 150 million acres of mostly cutover land to the national forests, or in alleviating poverty in depressed communities by means of reforestation projects. During his last 2 years, he was responsible for preparing a new appraisal of the Nation’s forest situa- tion.

Earle H. Clapp wrote:

[The] scarcity of natural resources and their control by the very few may pave the way through widespread human misery to despotism and dictatorship; while an abundance of natural re- sources, accessible to people generally, makes for democracy and freedom.

The struggle to create and administer the national forests gave birth to the entire conservation movement in the United States. At the end of the voluminous Public Land Act of 1891, a little section of 68 words gave the President authority to create from the public domain what we now call the national forests. A paragraph of 133 words as a rider to the Sundry Civil Appro- priations Act of 1897 provided for the administration of these forests. I know of no other legislation in our history which more broadly and as briefly authorized an undertaking so far-reaching in its consequences. The Act of March 3, 1891, was a clean break with the long established public policy of indiscriminate disposal of all public lands regardless of what might be done with the resources on them. That was a and daring thing to do in the face of public opinion of years ago. It took courage on the part of its advocates in Congress and out.

80 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century The War Years, 1942-1945

he war years intensified the need to establish national forest priorities–one of which was increasing national forest wood outputs T through the Timber Production War Project. The biggest single wood use was packing crates to ship military supplies; but other important uses were for bridges, railroad ties, gunstocks, ships, docks, barracks, other buildings, and aircraft. The Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, greatly expand- ed its research to fulfill military needs. The Forest Service also was called upon to lead a high-priority project—producing a rubber substitute from the guayule plant—a shrub native to the Southwest. A pilot project was begun in Salinas, California, and by 1944, more than 200,000 acres of guayule were under culti- vation—producing 3 million pounds of rubber substitute for use on airplanes, ships, and vehicles, especially for tires. The project was abandoned after the war when rubber from Southeast Asia again became available.

Recreation was de-em- phasized nationwide Aeneas Aircraft during the war; forest Warning Service fire protection became Lookout, Okano- gan National For- quite important, espe- est (Washington), cially along the west 1943 coast. Aircraft Warn- ing Stations (AWS), usually at selected forest lookouts, were established in 1942 to warn of impending air attacks on the west and east coasts. Almost 2,000 Forest Service employees joined the Armed Forces. In 1943, many conscien- tious objectors at home volunteered for smoke- jumper duty. Sixty were chosen for this very dangerous work. As during World War I, women were again employed as fire and USDA Forest Service aircraft lookouts, while civilian volunteers and outdoor groups were encouraged to form “Forest Service Reserves” to help with lookout and firefighting work on the national forests. The Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention Campaign—a joint venture between the Forest Service and State forestry officials—was organized during the war, when it became vitally important to protect the Nation’s timber supply. In 1944, this program became the Smokey Bear campaign.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 81 Lyle F. Watts— Seventh Chief, 1943-1952

Lyle Ford Watts was born in Cerro Gor- do County, Iowa, in 1890. Watts served as Chief during the turbulent years of World War II. With the obvious progress being made in the war effort, his atten- tion turned to planning what the nation- al forests and the Forest Service would be like after the war. He and his staff realized that the national forests needed to be opened up to development in the most scientific and orderly manner.

Watts encouraged the Forest Service to hire university forestry graduates to help develop forest road systems and inten- sively managed, sustained-yield forests. He oversaw the expansion of the Federal role of cooperator with the various States and private industry in the fields of forest fire protection, pest con- trol, tree planting, woodland management and harvesting, wood-product marketing and processing, grazing, and so on.

Lyle F. Watts wrote:

Forest Service conservation involves much more than the grow- ing of crops on forest lands to supply raw material in one form or another for an ever-growing list of uses. Forestry must be coupled with the social and economic welfare of rural communi- ties, especially in regions primarily dependent upon forest indus- tries. Improving forest productivity should mean a great deal to rural America in augmenting the income of farm folk, maintain- ing payrolls in small communities, and sustaining the tax base to support local government functions.

The Sustained-Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 and Sustained-Yield Units

The Sustained-Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 authorized the establish- ment of sustained-yield timber units. To stabilize communities, cooperative units were to combine the management of Federal timber land with private land. Federal units, the other category, reserved national forest timber for only one geographic area—usually one community and one mill. The act was first her- alded as protecting mills and jobs in the communities, but soon companies and communities that were not included in the agreements thought it to be monopo-

82 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century listic, noncompetitive, and exclusionary. The Shelton (Washington) Cooperative Sustained-Yield Unit agreement was signed in 1946—the only cooperative unit ever established–and still in operation today. Five Federal sustained-yield units were established: Vallecitos, New Mexico (Carson National Forest); Grays Harbor, Washington (Olympic National Forest); Flagstaff, Arizona (Coconino National Forest); Lakeview, Oregon (Fremont National Forest); and Big Valley, California (). Only the Lakeview unit is actively operating today.

Shelton, Washing- ton—Location of the Shelton Cooperative Sustained- Yield Unit

USDA Forest Service

Smokey Bear Smokey Bear Artist Rudolph Wendelin In 1944, Smokey Bear became the official fire pre- vention symbol of the Nation. The first Smokey poster was distrib- uted the following year. On June 27, 1950, a young bear cub–the only from a massive fire on the Lincoln Na- tional Forest—was USDA Forest Service moved to the National Zoo in Washington, DC, where he became the symbol of Smokey Bear In May 1975, the original Smokey Bear was retired from public duties. He died quietly the follow- ing January, with Smokey II taking his place. In the summer of 1990, Smokey II died. There are no more living Smokey at the National Zoo.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 83 THE STORY OF SMOKEY BEAR

Adapted from Gladys D. Daines and Elsie Cunningham “Prevention Programs: 1944 to 1994 and Beyond” Fire Management Notes, Volumes 53-54, Special Issue 1992-93

In 1942, a Japanese submarine shelling of an oil field near Santa Barbara, California, very close to the Los Padres National Forest, reinforced forest managers’ concerns about forest fires. Ongoing war efforts had drained the United States of forest firefighters and heavy equipment used to fight fires. Thus, the Forest Service wanted to encourage the general public to partici- pate in forest fire prevention.

The first step was taken when the Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention Cam- paign was begun. The forest supervisor of California’s Angeles National For- est contacted the newly formed Wartime Advertising Council for help. The council was made up of business and advertising people who were willing to donate their time and talent for the war effort. With an additional pledge of support from the National Association of State Foresters, a nationwide forest fire prevention campaign was launched. Foote, Cone and Belding Communications, Inc., of Los Angeles, became the volunteer agency for the campaign. Between 1942 and 1944, fire prevention posters used wartime slogans, then . They decided they wanted a bear illustration on the posters for 1945.

On August 9, 1944, Smokey Bear was described by Richard Hammett, director of the Wartime Forest Fire Prevention Program, as having a “nose short (Panda type), color black or brown; expression appealing, knowledge- able, quizzical; perhaps wearing a campaign (or Boy Scout) hat that typifies the outdoors and the woods.” Blue jeans were added later. The bear was named “Smokey” after “Smokey” Joe Martin, who was the Assistant Chief of the New York City from 1919 to 1930.

Albert Staehle, a nationally known artist, was asked to paint the first bear, which was completed in 1944 and distributed the following year. This first Smokey poster showed him pouring water on a campfire. In 1945, Smokey made his debut in many magazine and newspaper ads and hundreds of radio stations donated valuable broadcasting time for his message.

When the war was over, the Wartime Advertising Council, renamed the Ad- vertising Council, continued to sponsor public service campaigns, including Smokey Bear’s message (and does to this day). In 1946, Rudolph “Rudy” Wendelin returned to the Forest Service after serving in the Navy—he worked closely with the Advertising Council on Smokey Bear posters. Rudy was one of the best known Smokey Bear artists and soon became known as the “caretaker of the Smokey Bear image.” After his retirement in 1973,

84 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Rudy continued to paint Smokey and act as a Smokey Bear program con- sultant. Harry Rossoll, another famous Forest Service artist, created four Smokey cartoons a month in the United States and .

In 1950, some careless person started the terrible Capitan Gap forest fire on the in New Mexico. When a strong wind suddenly swept the fire toward a group of the courageous firefighters, 25 of them had to run to a rock slide, lay face down, and cover their faces with wet hand- kerchiefs to escape the deadly flames. They emptied their canteens over their clothes and swatted burning embers from each other’s backs. Finally, the fire passed and the smoke cleared. The only living thing those fire-fight- ers saw was a badly burned bear cub clinging to a blackened tree. They took the to a ranger station to tend to its burns. He was named “Smokey” after the original famous poster of Smokey Bear.

After the burns healed, the little bear was sent to live at the National Zoological Park in Washington, DC, where he became the living symbol of forest fire prevention, as well as the most visited attraction at the zoo. Another orphaned bear was found in 1961 in the Magdelena Mountains of New Mexico. “Goldie,” as she was named, was sent to the zoo to become Smokey’s companion.

The original Smokey Bear was retired from public duties in May 1975 and died quietly on November 5 of that same year. He was buried at the Smokey Bear State Historical Park in Capitan, New Mexico (the idea for the park originated from the Capitan Women’s Club and opened on May 15, 1976). Smokey was buried under a huge rock near where he was found 26 years before. A bronze plaque with the following inscription has been placed on the rock:

SMOKEY BEAR. This is the final resting place for the first living Smokey Bear. In 1950 when Smokey was a tiny cub, wildfire burned his forest home in the nearby of the Lincoln National Forest. Firefighters found the badly burned cub clinging to a blackened tree and saved his life. In June 1950, the cub was flown to our Nation’s Capital to become the living symbol of wildfire prevention and wildlife conservation. After 25 years he was replaced by another orphaned black bear from the Lincoln National Forest.

After the original Smokey retired, Smokey II took his place. Smokey II died in the summer of 1990. The Forest Service has since decided not to replace the living symbol of Smokey at the National Zoo.

Because of the Smokey Bear Program’s growing popularity, Congress passed the Smokey Bear Act in 1952 to protect the Smokey’s image and the work of the Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention (CFFP) Council. The act

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 85 prohibits Smokey Bear’s use and wearing the Smokey Bear costume without permission, permits licensing the use of Smokey Bear, and allows the Forest Service to keep any Smokey Bear royalties and put them into a fund to be used only for forest fire prevention.

In 1952, Ideal Toys manufactured the first Smokey Bear . It came with a card that children could fill out and mail to become “Junior Forest Rangers.” Children readily responded and by 1955 there were 500,000 Ju- nior Forest Rangers. Children were encouraged to write to Smokey and by 1965 Smokey Bear was given his own zip code—20252!

The famous message “Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires” was created in 1947 by the Ad Council’s volunteer agency and is still used today. In a recent study, 95 percent of the people surveyed could finish the sentence when given the first words, “Remember, Only YOU....” The same survey found 98 percent of those polled could identify Smokey Bear when shown his picture. On August 13, 1984, the U.S. Postal Service honored Smokey Bear’s 40th birthday with a commemorative stamp, drawn by Rudy Wendelin.

The Smokey message has been oriented towards children ages 4 to 12 in the form of posters, films, videos, comic books, pins, handouts, wall and pock- et calenders, bumper stickers, exhibits, balloons, and even a Smokey hot air balloon. As early as 1950, a number of State organizations began designing Smokey costumes that were (and still are) used in schools, in parades, and other places where children and adults can see and hear the fire prevention message. The Smokey costume has varied over the years, eventually evolv- ing into the familiar costume that resembles the Wendelin character. For a short time there was a Smokey Jr., costume and then—in the later years—a graying fur costume as Smokey was showing his age.

The 50th anniversary of the first Smokey poster has been characterized as a celebration of one of the most successful advertising campaigns in the history of the United States. A new series of 50th anniversary posters, pins, and other memorabilia were distributed, as well as a special 25-minute his- torical video production. The video was entitled “Fifty Years with Smokey Bear” and focused on the visual character and real life of Smokey. A special golden anniversary slogan competition was sponsored by the National Association of State Foresters. The winning slogan was submitted by the Ohio Division of Forestry: “REMEMBER...SMOKEY HAS FOR FIFTY YEARS.”

86 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Smokey Bear as a Cub with Judy Bell

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 87 The Postwar Development Era, 1946-1959

ue in part to the vastly increased demand for wood products and the construction of new homes, the postwar national forest managers were active in opening vast forest areas to timber management. Until then, the Dtimber industry viewed the national forests as huge timber sources that needed to be kept off the market so that the timber industry could keep private timber prices high. The timber industry now sought cheap national forest timber to supplement or replace heavily cutover private forest lands. The opening of the national forests to timber harvesting and road development after World War II would have consequences that we are still feeling today. Timber Management

The technology of extracting timber from the woods changed dramatically. Before the Depression and war, much lumbering was done with axes and crosscut saws, but after the war, everyone was using the new, highly efficient chainsaws. Log transportation evolved from horses, oxen, floating logs down rivers, and railroads to the new systems of roads and trucks, and even balloons and helicopters by the 1970’s. With the increased emphasis on timber production, the number of timber sales jumped. Forestry schools around the Nation were training thousands of new foresters who were dedicated to finding more efficient and intensive methods of managing the national forests. The Forest Service was entering what has been called the “hard hat era.” Intensive forest management was beginning in earnest. Congress passed the Tongass Timber Act on July 27, 1947, which authorized four 50-year timber sales on Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.

Logging truck on Pole Road, Clearwater National Forest (Idaho), 1935

USDA Forest Service

88 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century A Large Douglas-Fir Tree Being Felled by Ax and Crosscut Saw in Western Washington, circa 1899

USDA Forest Service

Early Chainsaw (Gas) Sugar Pine, Stanislaus Na- tional Forest (California), 1948

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 89 TREE CUTTING TECHNOLOGY

Adapted from Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History (1983) and other sources.

Tree cutting (logging) technology has undergone extensive changes in the last 200 years. When colonists arrived on the eastern seaboard, the ax was the only method to fell trees to clear farmland, build houses, and provide firewood for the hearth. Yet early settlers were faced with many problems in the New World, including the fact that the trees were very large and very tall, unlike the trees the settlers had left in Europe.

By 1789, the American felling ax evolved to meet the settlers’ needs. This unique ax was straight handled and single bitted (one blade), which gave great balance and more power to the stroke. Its short, heavy, wedge-shaped blade was both durable and easily extracted from the wood. Curved handles became standard during the 19th century. Some time around 1850, loggers began using a double-bitted ax. This new invention proved to be very popular. The ax had the advantage of having two cutting edges, yet still possessed the balance and durability of the single-bitted ax. By the 1880’s, Americans were making these blades of cast steel—rather than iron with a steel cutting edge welded on.

American settlers also modified European cutting or chopping techniques. Instead of making V-shaped cuts at almost the same level on opposite sides of a tree trunk, Americans made one cut lower than the other (the under- cut) and made both cuts flat on the bottom. This method gave the feller greater control over the direction the tree would fall and reduced the time- consuming use of wedges and levers.

Beginning in the 1870’s, crosscut saws were adapted to felling trees—a major innovation. Crosscut saws had long been used to cut logs into lengths once they were on the ground, but now the saws were used in the horizon- tal position to cut the trees down. Two crosscut saw developments helped this major advance: The invention of raker teeth, which when coupled with cutting teeth and gullets carried away the sawdust and tree pitch or sap that would often clog the saw blade. The invention resulted in a saw that could cut green standing trees without binding the blade. The other invention was the adoption of the tempered steel blade, which was stronger than previous saws and would remain sharp through hours of use. Use of crosscut saws, especially the two-man saws, spread rapidly and became the industry stan- dard for many years. By the turn of the 20th century, new saw designs with different teeth had been developed for use on different tree species. In the 1920’s, the bucksaw replaced the crosscut saw in the Northeast and Canada. The bucksaw was lighter, but not suitable for large trees.

90 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century The springboard was introduced in the far West and in cypress logging in the South. Essentially, springboards were metal-tipped planks that were inserted into notches chopped into the tree trunk. These springboards served as platforms on which the fellers stood, allowing them to be above the dense undergrowth and above the swollen base of the old-growth trees, which were often pitch-laden and full of rotten wood.

During this period, logging operations were often along the edges of streams and rivers, making the transportation of logs downstream to the mill a relatively easy task—river log drives. As harvesting proceeded, logging operations moved farther and farther away from the river’s edge, creating a problem— how to move the heavy logs. Loggers responded by cutting smaller length logs or, in the case of redwoods and other large trees, by splitting (riving) the logs lengthwise.

Yarding or skidding of the logs also changed over the decades. The most difficult aspect was moving the logs from where they were felled to a place where they could be transported to the mill. Log moving technology pro- gressed quickly in the United States from the human effort applied through brute force and primitive tools to oxen and horses. In the Northeast and Lake States, logs were very often hauled during the winter months when horses could easily pull heavily laden sleds over the ice and snow.

Mechanization came to the woods in the form of high-wheel logging where logs were suspended under an arch that connected a set of large wooden wheels. High wheels, as they were called, were pulled by horses or oxen, and later steam powered tractors. Beginning in the 1880’s, railroads with special geared locomotives were used to transport the logs from the forest to the mill. Three well-known gear driven locomotives were manufactured by Shay, Climax, and Heisler. Many of the first Forest Service timber sales were railroad operations. A great improvement on hauling logs to transportation sites was the invention of the stationary steam-powered Dolbeer donkey engines to yard (pull) logs from where they fell to a central location. The process was referred to as ground lead logging.

The crawler-type tractor, first powered by gasoline, then diesel engines, was used beginning in the 1920’s to pull logs along the ground or used with big wheels, arched steel axles, and A-frame logging arches. In the 1920’s, with the invention of the cable-operated blade by Forest Service employees in Portland, Oregon, the “cat” was ready to replace the donkey engine to haul logs or build roads in almost any terrain. Gasoline- then diesel-powered logging trucks were used in the forests beginning around World War I, but their main impact came shortly after the end of World War II. Since that time almost all logging operations on national forests have used logging roads and trucks to carry logs from the forest to the mill.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 91 Newer technological inventions, such as high-lead logging with a spar tree, skyline full-suspension systems with one or more spar trees or towers, bal- loon, and helicopter operations, allowed logs to be carried high over the forest with very little dragging of the logs through the often steep, rug- ged country with fragile soils. Many of these new systems would become required on the steep mountainous country that was characteristic of many national forests.

The first power saw was built in the 1870’s when the Ransome steam tree- feller was designed. What may have been the first gasoline-powered chain saw was tested in 1905 at Eureka, California. These early experiments were followed by air- and electric-powered models. Moderately successful drag (reciprocating) saws were used to cut fallen logs to length and to make short bolts for shingles. All of these experimental models proved to be too cum- bersome, too heavy, and too undependable. Then in 1927, Andreas Stihl of Stuttgart, Germany, built a portable, gasoline-powered chainsaw that revo- lutionized the industry. But because of the Great Depression, power saws remained relatively rare until after World War II.

The chainsaw soon replaced the crosscut and bucksaws for felling trees, as well as the remaining ax work. The chainsaw also made new felling tech- niques possible. In the big timber country, the Humboldt undercut was used. After an initial horizontal cut on the tree trunk, a second angle was sawed up to the horizontal cut; then the “wedge” of wood between the two cuts was removed from the stump. The tree trunk was then cut from the backside along the horizontal cut on the frontside until it would fall down. This would leave the butt end of the log with a square end.

By the 1940’s, hydraulic shears appeared that could cut through standing trees when pressure was applied to heavy-duty blades. By the 1960’s, a va- riety of tractor-mounted shears were in use, with many machines designed not only to cut the trees, but also to remove the bark and limbs, cut the tree to desired lengths, and stack the logs. These new systems worked very well on relatively flat terrain and with small-diameter trees. Another advantage was that they could operate during either the day or night.

Other inventions have played roles in the evolution of logging technology, some of which have come into widespread use—others limited use. With increasing pressure from the Federal agencies to reduce ground erosion dur- ing and after logging operations, restricting the use of heavy equipment has become the norm. Full-suspension of logs, use of low-pressure tire-tractors, selective cutting, directional felling, and aerial removal of logs are all mea- sures that may be required of logging companies in order to log on national forests or Bureau of Land Management lands today. In any case, the new techniques and equipment are easier on the land, usually more efficient, but also more costly.

92 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Research Builds

During the same period, national forest research came of age. Research sta- tions and new experimental forests conducted studies to find better ways to harvest trees, construct new roads, and measure the effects of logging and roads on streams and watersheds. A system of multifunctional research centers was established in 1946, with each center concerned about its own assigned research territory, and a new program was designed to address local forest and range prob- lems, with applications to regional and national issues.

H.J. Andrews Experimen- tal Forest Willamette National For- est (Oregon), 1953

USDA Forest Service The BLM in the Department of the Interior was formed in 1946 from the Graz- ing Service and the GLO. The BLM currently manages some 264 million acres of Federal land—mostly grazing land with the exception of the old O&C Railroad Grant land in western Oregon, which is heavily timbered. Forest Protection

The Forest Pest Control Act of 1947 paved the way for increased protection from pest outbreaks. The act encouraged Federal, State, and private cooperation in the prevention, control, and even eradication of forest insects and diseases that reduced tree growth or killed trees. In 1948, the Forest Service became involved in the Yazoo-Little Tallahatchie Flood Prevention Project—the largest tree plant- ing program the country has ever known–with some 621,000 acres planted. The project was designed to rehabilitate severely eroding lands–with some gullies as much as 50 feet deep—in Mississippi. The USDA Soil Conservation Service (now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service), as well as other Federal, State, 19 counties, and many local agencies, cooperated in this extensive project until it ended in 1985. New technology in every field became very important in managing the forests.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 93 Richard E. McArdle— Eighth Chief, 1952-1962

Richard Edwin McArdle was born on Febru- ary 25, 1899, in Lexington, Kentucky. In 1952, McArdle became Chief of the Forest Service. As the first Chief to hold a Ph.D. and to have been a researcher, he felt the need for balanced management of the national forests. During his tenure as Chief, The Timber Resource Review was published; it evaluated the total timber resources in the United States. The landmark Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 established policy for the broad development and administration of the national forests in the public interest. McArdle was successful in increasing intensive management of the national forests, as well as providing for reforestation of logged and other lands, curbing mining and grazing abuses, and accelerating various recreation projects. During his tenure, the Forest Service was assigned the manage- ment of 4 million acres of western plains lands designated as national grasslands. McArdle also was instrumental in upgrading Forest Service personnel, hiring new specialists to bring about intensive management, and increasing the professionalism of employees. He improved relations with the timber industry by backing away from earlier proposals to regulate timber harvesting practices on private lands.

Richard E. McArdle wrote:

Farm woodland and other small private forests hold the key to this Nation’s future timber supply. These lands, generally in poor condition, are the greatest potential source of wood fiber. Pro- ducing more wood on these lands requires concerted effort by State and Federal forests, forest industries, and the landowners.

New Specialists and Land

During the 1950’s, forest engineers, landscape architects, and silviculturists became common in the Forest Service. In 1954, the agency became responsible for managing approximately 4 million acres of “land utilization projects” (referred to as L-U lands), which were basically grazing lands on the Great Plains. These lands, acquired by the Federal Government during the Depression years of the 1930’s, were in many cases relinquished or abandoned farms. In 1960, the earlier land utilization projects became the first national grasslands.

In 1953, the Department of Agriculture transferred forest insect and disease re- search and control work from other Department agencies to the Forest Service. 94 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Little Missouri , Custer Na- tional Forest (North Dakota), 1995

USDA Forest Service

NATIONAL GRASSLANDS

Adapted from Terry West’s Essay on National Grasslands

The origin of the USDA Forest Service-administered national grasslands begins with the disposal of public lands in the early 20th century. The En- larged Homestead Act of 1909, for example, offered free land to those who would cultivate the Great Plains. Market demand for wheat during and after World War I further motivated “sodbusters” to settle previously bypassed grassland areas and plow them for cultivation.

The removal of the grass that held down the soil on these marginal farm lands contributed to the erosion of the “dustbowl” in the drought years of 1 the 1930’s. In that decade, an estimated 2 /2 million people abandoned their small farms, mainly on the plains. Many of them migrated to the west coast to work in the fields. The young author John Steinbeck was so affected by the sight of these families pouring into California to work the fruit harvests that he immortalized them in the novel The Grapes of Wrath. The economic and ecological plight of the Nation spurred Government action to address the effects of the Depression, especially in the “dustbowl” area of the Great Plains.

In 1931, a national conference entitled “Land Utilization” called for a survey of submarginal farmlands. Once these lands were identified, the Govern- ment began to purchase them under the authorization of the National

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 95 Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of 1935. The aim was to control erosion, produce more forage, and ensure economic stability for rural residents who had remained. Depleted cropland was planted with grass and the grazing of cattle and sheep on the public rangelands changed from year around grazing to grazing on a rotating basis. Various government programs undertook water and soil conservation proj- ects.

The purchased lands were called Land Utilization (L-U) projects after the title of the 1931 conference. The Government obtained title to 11.3 mil- lion acres in 45 States for $47.5 million (about $4.40 an acre) by voluntary sales. After the L-U lands were purchased, they were used for practical dem- onstrations of the best soil conservation techniques to set an example for adjacent private landholders. Between 1933 and 1946, there were 250 L-U projects that focused on grazing, forests, recreation, wildlife, and watershed protection. During the Depression years, relief agencies hired unemployed locals to work on L-U soil conservation projects, enabling many who stayed on the land to survive. Specific projects of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) included building stock water ponds and reservoirs, planting trees, seeding grasslands (with crested-wheatgrass, a bunchgrass originally imported from Siberia), and controlling erosion and fire.

The lands were first administered by the U.S. Resettlement Administration, later called the Farm Security Administration. The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 gave custody of the L-U lands to the Secretary of Ag- riculture and authorized more extensive conservation efforts. In 1938, the SCS was given the task of managing the L-U lands. The period after World War II was one of intense range rehabilitation by the SCS.

By Secretary of Agriculture Administrative Order dated December 24, 1953 (effective January 2, 1954), management of the remaining 5.5 million acres of L-U lands was transferred from the SCS to the Forest Service. The origi- nal intent was that the Forest Service act as interim manager pending final disposal of these acquired lands. By 1958, about 1.5 million acres had been incorporated into adjacent national forests. Discussion over the future of these lands continued.

On June 20, 1960, some 3,804,000 acres were designated as the 19 na- tional grasslands. The Forest Service was now responsible for the perma- nent retention and management of the grasslands. The 1960 order stated that the national grasslands were to be administered as part of the National Forest System under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act and that the For- est Service was to manage these lands for outdoor recreation, range, tim- ber, watershed, and wildlife and fish. This new task created some internal confusion about the place of the national grasslands in the agency and their national function.

96 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century When the Forest Service took over management of the grasslands, existing SCS policies were not readily accepted by the Forest Service. The Forest Service had managed rangeland for 50 years and many of its range staff felt that the new national grasslands should abide by established agency practic- es. One area of difference was working with grazing associations. In 1939, the SCS had entered into cooperative agreements with Great Plains States’ grazing associations and districts. These associations originated on the Great Plains as early as 1931 when stockmen organized to request that Congress withdraw public domain land from homesteading and permit it to be leased on a long-term basis.

Forest Service officials were reluctant to surrender to grazing associations control of activities such as issuing permits, collecting fees, and controlling trespass and fires. However, the mass transfer of SCS employees in Mon- tana and the Dakotas to the Forest Service in this transition period led to the eventual acceptance of many of the SCS practices. The current policy is to rely on grazing associations where practical. This arrangement is most common in the larger L-U range lands in the northern Great Plains. By the 1970’s, national grasslands in northern New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas ceased to have grazing associations. Instead, the Forest Service issued indi- vidual grazing permits and fenced off grassland units to make separate pas- tures. The change was a logical adaptation to the region’s ecology and land use patterns. (The L-U lands purchased in New Mexico-Oklahoma-Texas area were smaller than those on the northern Great Plains. For example, the Black Kettle [Texas] allotments ranged from 30 to 1,500 acres.)

The national environmental focus of the 1970’s and 1980’s on the national forests spilled over to the national grasslands. District rangers on both national grasslands and national forest districts found that local concerns over specific project impacts were transformed into national issues. On the grasslands this has meant the employment of more wildlife biologists and an increased stress on noncommodity resources.

In the late-1990’s, management of the national grasslands in the Dakotas was given greater emphasis when they were given the same management treatment as the national forests–one supervisor’s office to manage several grasslands. Future management of the national grasslands will involve many more specialists, ecosystem management, collaborative stewardship, and cooperative efforts between all the special interest groups. It will not be an easy task.

Mining

In 1955, the Multiple-Use Mining Act helped prevent abuses of mining laws and curtail mining abuses that interfered with managing national forest lands. An im- portant feature of this law was that, after proper notice, mining claimants could

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 97 be requested to prove the validity of their mining claims. This procedure quickly eliminated thousands of abandoned mining claims on the national forests.

The year 1956 saw the first practical airplane tanker airdrop of water and chemi- cals on a forest fire. Many of the airplanes were converted World War II bomb- ers, now with their bomb bays were full of Borate and other mixtures rather than bombs.

Air Tanker Dropping Chemical on a Fire

USDA Forest Service

MINING ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Adapted from Terry West’s Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)

“Prosperous mining is impossible without prosperous forests,” Forest Ser- vice Chief Gifford Pinchot told the mining industry in 1901 in his quest for support for forest conservation and Federal forest reserves. The linkage be- tween the fortunes of mining and forests in the United States grew following discovery of the rich Comstock silver lode at Virginia City, Nevada–large underground mines needed mine timbers to support the tunnels. Between 1860 and 1880, an estimated 600 million board feet of timber from Sierra Nevada forests were used in the Comstock. Many new sawmills were built around the country to supply mine timbers from local forests.

Pinchot was after more than just asking miners to conserve lumber when he told them about the relationship between forestry and mining. Miners and prospectors had been early opponents of the proposed Federal forest reserves. They worried that mining would be restricted on such reserves and voiced their concerns in the congressional debate over the Organic Act of 1897.

98 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century The General Land Office’s (GLO) first timber sale (Case No. 1) was made in 1898 to the Homestake Mining Company for timber from the Black Hills Forest Reserve. Homestake purchased 15 million board feet at a dollar per thousand. The contract required that no trees smaller than 8 inches in diameter be removed, and that the brush resulting from the harvest be “piled.”

The Federal Government’s regulation of mining was not a critical issue in Congress until the California Gold Rush of 1849 and later rushes in Colo- rado, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. These “finds” resulted in claims being worked on public domain lands. After the Civil War, Congress passed a number of laws intending to establish some semblance of order to the min- ing industry. Two of these laws—the Lode Law of 1866 and the Placer Act of 1870—merely legalized what had been the unofficial “law of the land.”

The General Mining Law of 1872 consolidated the earlier laws and con- firmed the principle that minerals found on public domain land belonged to the person who found (located) them. The 1872 law also:

• Set standards for making mineral claims on public land • Set no royalty fees for production • Set fees for transfer of the land from public to private ownership ($2.50 per acre) • Set the size of the claims • Allowed a claimant to hold the land indefinitely as long as minimal work was completed ($100 value per year) on the claim

A claim was set at 20 acres, with no limit on the number of claims that could be filed. A person could hold his claim by performing $100 worth of work each year or by obtaining permanent legal ownership of the minerals and land surface by paying a fee to “patent” the claim. Most importantly, the claimant was granted legal claim to the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.

The transfer of the forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture in 1905 removed much of the USDA foresters’ impediment in regulating the forest reserves; however, mining remained under control of the Department of the Interior. Richard Ballinger, ap- pointed in 1907 to head GLO and elevated to Secretary of the Interior in 1909, differed with Chief Gifford Pinchot over coal claims in Alaska. Ballinger wanted them patented, while Pinchot argued for Federal leasing. Pinchot feared a national coal famine would result if the private sector was allowed complete freedom to exploit coal fields without concern for future needs. The mining industry depicted Pinchot as out to curtail the citizen’s right to engage in free enterprise—the “little guy” was being crushed by Government. By 1910, the dispute between Pinchot and Ballinger reached the point that President Taft fired Pinchot. Historians now note that the coal

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 99 debate was only a small part of the conflict between Pinchot, President Taft, and his cabinet over natural resource management policies.

In 1920, Congress passed the Mineral Leasing Act, which incorporated oil and natural gas, oil shale, phosphates, sulfates, carbonites, and other surface and subsurface resources under a system of rental and royalty fees. The Government still retained ownership of the land. The 1947 Materials Dis- posal Act set standards for the Federal Government to sell materials such as sand, gravel, building stone, clay, , and cinders from Federal lands. Competitive bidding was an integral part of the act.

In the early 1950’s, the Forest Service and several conservation groups launched a campaign to expose abuses found under the various mining laws. The resulting investigations found widespread problems—mining claims were being used as home and recreation cabin sites, excuses to cut the timber, fishing and hunting camps in remote areas, commercial busi- nesses, and even trash dumps. Congress responded by passing the Multiple- Use Mining Act of 1955. As a result, the Forest Service was able to reclaim thousands of “mineral” claims that were never used for their authorized and intended purpose, others that had no minerals, and even more that had not lived up to annual work requirements on the claim.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 changed the procedures for filing mineral claims—the paperwork had to be filed with the Bureau of Land Management (rather than the local county court- house) and all claims needed to be refiled by 1979. As a result of FLPMA, the Federal Government found that some 1.1 million mining claims were located on Federal lands and also eliminated many fraudulent claims.

Legislation to “fix” the General Mining Law of 1872 has been proposed many times over the years, but every effort has been successfully blocked by the mining industry and western congressional delegations.

Recreation and Timber Demands

Recreational demands on the national forests were increasing; millions of new visitors used the national forests and parks. “Operation Outdoors,” a 5-year pro- gram designed to improve and replace many of the older CCC-built structures, was launched in 1957 to expand the recreation facilities and opportunities on the national forests to meet demand.

In 1958, the Forest Service issued the results of the nationwide Timber Resource Review, “Timber Resources for America’s Future.” This extensive national study, begun 6 years earlier and prepared with the assistance of other Federal, State, and private organizations, found that the Nation needed to grow more timber to meet expected demands. The study was a preview of more extensive timber resource assessments that would be made in the future.

100 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century At the same time, there was a growing concern that the Forest Service was clearcutting too many areas that were also used for recreation. This issue and others about resource priorities would involve many outdoor groups, timber industry organizations, the Forest Service, and Congress, and would result in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.

Winter Olym- pics at Squaw Valley, Tahoe National For- est (Califor- nia), 1960

USDA Forest Service

Most of the national forests were “opened up” through an extensive network of roads for timber, recreation, and protection activities. Many of the older trails were replaced by the growing road system used to access remote forest areas.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 101 The Fully Managed, Multiple-Use Forest Era, 1960-1970

n the early 1960’s, a new wave of national concern about the conserva- tion of natural resources began. It resulted in several controversies over I the management of the national forests and in the passage of many envi- ronmental protection laws. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960

The first of the environmental protection laws was the Multiple-Use Sustained- Yield Act of 1960. Its purpose was to ensure that all possible uses and benefits of the national forests and grasslands would be treated equally. The “multiple uses” included outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish in such combinations that they would best meet and serve human needs.

Wildlife Biologist Bernie Carter Measuring Seed Production, (Oregon), 1964

USDA Forest Service

This act was necessary because many members of Congress and interest groups felt that the Forest Service was giving too much attention to timber harvesting on the national forests—just 15 years after the huge post-war development push to open the national forests for needed timber to be used in the national hous- ing boom. Multiple-use forestry was in “full-swing,” with an increasing emphasis being placed on nontimber resources, while timber production increased to the maximum in the private sector and approached that for the national forests.

102 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century In the early 1960’s, the family of Gifford Pinchot donated Grey Towers, the family home and surrounding land in Milford, , to the Forest Service. Extensive stabilization and repair work was needed on the magnificent building. Grey Towers is one of two Forest Service buildings listed as a National Historic Landmark. The other is the Timberline Lodge on the south face of Oregon’s Mt. Hood on the Mt. Hood National Forest. The newly formed Pinchot Institute for Conservation Studies was dedicated at Grey Towers by President John F. Kennedy on September 24, 1963. The Pinchot Institute currently resides in Washington, DC.

Hiker at In- dian Peaks Wilderness on the Roosevelt National Forest (Colorado)

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 103 President Kennedy and Chief Cliff at Pinchot Institute Dedication (Pennsylvania), 1963

Oregon Governor Mark Hatfield and Astronaut Walter Cunningham Talk- ing During Moon Walks Preparation on Lava Beds, Oregon, Willamette and Deschutes National Forests

Photo Credit: USDA Forest Service

104 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Edward P. Cliff— Ninth Chief, 1962-1972

Edward Parley Cliff was born in the tiny com- munity of Heber City, Utah, on September 3, 1909. Serving as Chief from 1962 to 1972, Cliff experienced a decade of rapid change within the agency and around the country. He devoted much time to promoting a better understand- ing of public forest management problems with grazing interests and the timber industry—and especially with the general public. Public inter- est in the management of the national forests, as well as demands for numerous forest resources, expanded during this era. He helped the Forest Service develop a long-range forest research program.

Important for the national forest recreationists was Cliff’s vision of moving the Forest Service into more recreational improvements and programs– caused by an “explosion” in outdoor recreation—hiking, camping, wilder- ness travel, mountain climbing, and many other national forest outdoor activities. The Wilderness Act of 1964 gave congressional blessing to a new National Wilderness Preservation System and established more than 9 mil- lion acres of previously “wild” or “wilderness” areas as the core. The Forest Service hosted the new Job Corps program, which operated over 50 camps on national forest lands. The agency also became involved in the nationwide natural beauty campaign, rural area development, and the war on poverty.

Edward P. Cliff wrote:

As the population of the country rises and demands on the tim- ber, forage, water, wildlife, and recreation resources increase, the national forests more and more provide for the material needs of the individual, the economies of the towns and States and con- tribute to the Nation’s strength and well-being. Thus the national forests serve the people.

MULTIPLE-USE SUSTAINED-YIELD ACT OF 1960

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (MUSY), was the congressional embodiment of 55 years of Forest Service management and policy. The Organic Act of 1897 guided the agency for decades with the management ideas of protection of the forests and water and the production of timber. For the most part, Federal forest management was not controver-

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 105 sial during this period, but major changes were on the horizon. Part of the reason for the act was a realization that everyone could not get everything they wanted or needed from the national forests’ finite resources. Even an equal balancing act between the available natural resources was not pos- sible.

By the mid-1950’s, the first inkling of a shift in management philosophy came with the congressional debates about multiple-use bills. The first was introduced by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota. Basically, there was a growing concern that in the decade of rapid development of the na- tional forests since the end of World War II, the Forest Service was leaning so much toward managing of timber that other resources, especially recre- ation, were getting short shrift.

Initially, the Forest Service was opposed or neutral to a multiple-use bill. However, the Forest Service was beginning to feel the heat from growing opposition to its policies about logging in or near recreation sites. One focus of this contention was in California’s Deadman Creek area. The 3,000-acre site contained a stand of old-growth Jeffrey pine. When the Forest Service announced plans to do “sanitation salvage” in the area, reaction was swift and allegations were made that the recreation and scientific values were be- ing ignored for the timber value. Similar conflicts arose in many parts of the West.

By the late 1950’s, the conservation groups generally supported the Hum- phrey bill, with the exception of the Sierra Club, which felt that support of the multiple-use bill would jeopardize its efforts to pass a wilderness bill. During the spring of 1960, agreements were made with various groups to clarify wording in the act so that timber would not dominate, that recre- ation would be equal to other resource uses on the national forests, and that the Organic Act of 1897 would only be supplemented, not replaced.

After the act was signed in 1960, the Forest Service was active in managing the national forests where all resources (timber, wildlife, range, water, and outdoor recreation) were treated equally. Many rangers did their utmost to embody the principles of multiple use into their management. For some, however, the act simply redefined what the Forest Service had been doing for decades: Timber harvesting and road construction. Many people out- side the agency saw that forests were not managed any differently under MUSY—it was still just a road leading to an ugly clearcut. This example of redefinition of the old ways rather than managing differently on the ground had implications for the forest management controversies of the 1970’s, 1980’s, and 1990’s.

106 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century The passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, opposed by the Forest Ser- vice as being authorized by MUSY, set the stage for strident antagonism expressed by the old conservation organizations and new environmental groups that would be felt by the Forest Service to this day. One impor- tant aspect of the MUSY was the creation of multiple-use planning, which brought a number of new specialists such as soil scientists and wildlife biologists into daily land management decisions.

Work Programs

In 1963, the Forest Service became involved with the Accelerated Public Works (APW) program that was designed to put unemployed men (there were still no women on these projects) to work on projects to develop or improve national forest resources. The 1963-64 program provided immediate work for over 9,000 men on more than 100 national forests in 35 States. It also brought increased business to many communities adjacent to national forests—providing much- needed boosts to their economies. APW projects included working on camp and picnic areas; planting trees; timber stands; improving fish and wildlife habitat; and constructing or improving roads, trails, fire lookouts, and other facilities.

A new work program for young, unemployed youth Ojibway Job began in 1964 and was called Corps Enrollee the Job Corps. The Job Corps and Ottawa Na- tional Forest Fish was designed to give young Biologist Taking men (young women were Water Samples, admitted later) from deprived Ottawa National backgrounds basic schooling, Forest (Michi- training in skills, and valu- gan),1967 able job experience before they returned to their home communities. It resembled the older CCC program of the Great Depression—par- ticipants were involved in firefighting, community work, building construction, and forestry activities on the national forests. In 1989, the Job Corps program cel- ebrated its 25th anniversary, having served more than 1.4 million youths. USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 107 Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts

After years of struggle, the Wilderness Act of 1964 was signed into law. This unique law established a National Wilderness Preservation System of more than 9 million acres—incorporating the existing Forest Service wilderness areas and creating several new ones. One provision in the Wilderness Act called for evalua- tion of any national forest areas that were without roads (hence the name “roadless areas”) that might be considered for future wilderness status. In 1967, the Forest Service undertook a Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) to identify and study these “de facto wildernesses.”

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 authorized a number of important, dis- tinctive rivers to be classified as wild, scenic, and recreational. Today, the Forest Service manages more than 4,000 miles of such rivers on nearly 100 rivers or river segments.

John Muir Wilderness, Sierra Na- tional Forest (California), 1963

USDA Forest Service

108 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Canoeing on the Wild and Scenic Chattooga River, Sum- ter National Forest (South Carolina), 1986

USDA Forest Service

WILDERNESS ACT AND HOWARD ZAHNISER

Passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 involved decades of work on the part of many people both inside the Forest Service and from a variety of inter- est groups. As early as the 1910’s and 1920’s there were several important proponents of wilderness designation in the national forests. Three men are considered pivotal in these early years and all were Forest Service employ- ees: Aldo Leopold, Arthur H. Carhart, and Robert Marshall. Their efforts were successful at the local level in creating administratively designated wilderness protection for several areas across the country. At the national policy level, there was a series of policy decisions (L-20 and U Regulations) in the 1920’s and 1930’s that made wilderness and primitive area designa- tion relatively easy, but what was lacking was a common standard of man- agement across the country for these areas. Also, since these wilderness and primitive areas were administratively designated, the next Chief or Regional Forester could “undesignate” any of the areas with the stroke of a pen.

Howard C. Zahniser, executive secretary of the Wilderness Society (founded by Bob Marshall), became the leader in a movement for congressionally des- ignated wilderness areas. As early as 1949, Zahniser detailed his proposal for Federal wilderness legislation in which Congress would establish a na- tional wilderness system, identify appropriate areas, prohibit incompatible uses, list potential new areas, and authorize a commission to recommend changes to the program. Nothing much happened to the proposal, but it

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 109 did raise the awareness for the need to protect wildernesses and primitive areas from all forms of development.

In 1955, Zahniser began an effort to convince skeptics and Congress to support a bill to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System. He sought to rally public opinion through writing in The Living Wilderness and other publications, as well as organizing many talks to citizens groups across the country. Drafts of a bill were circulated the next year. By the late 1950’s, it seemed that the wilderness bill would eventually become law, but there were still many legislative battles to be fought. At the same time, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSY) was also being pushed through Congress. Some have suggested that the Forest Service strongly supported MUSY to counteract the wilderness legislation. After the passage of MUSY in 1960, there were also many who felt that there was no need for a sepa- rate wilderness bill because wilderness was one of the many multiple uses allowed in the act. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN) became a major supporter of the wilderness bill, but State water agencies, and mining, tim- ber, and agricultural interests were very much opposed. The Forest Service and, ironically, the National Park Service were also both initially opposed to the bill. The wilderness bill, which was stalled for several years in Congress, finally came out of committee with a compromise that allowed mining in national forest wildernesses until 1984.

Ironically, Howard Zahniser, who pushed so hard for the act, died on May 5, just a few months before the bill became law. Doug Scott, policy director of the Pew Wilderness Center recalled Howard’s last days. “Zahnie [as he was affectionately known] wasn’t there to see it [the wilderness bill]...Just 2 days after testifying at [the final congressional hearing], Zahnie died at the age of 58...But, his widow, Alice, and Olaus and the incomparable Mardy Murie stood at Lyndon Johnson’s side when the wilderness law was passed.” President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law on September 3, 1964. Because of Zahniser’s relentless efforts, he has often been called the “Father of the Wilderness Act.”

The act designed 9.1 million acres of wilderness, mostly from national for- est lands. Overnight, all of the existing Forest Service wildernesses became part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. A team of Forest Ser- vice wilderness managers met soon afterward in Washington, DC, to come up with implementing regulations for these new congressionally established wildernesses. What they thought would be an easy task took many months as they found that there were no consistent or agreed-upon ways to man- age the existing wildernesses. Part of the Wilderness Act of 1964 also set up procedures to evaluate existing primitive and roadless areas for possible inclusion into the wilderness system. For the next 20 years, the roadless ar- eas reviews (RARE and RARE II) would play an important and controversial role in Forest Service management of the national forests.

110 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Using Litigation To Settle Disputes With the Forest Service

A controversy erupted in the mid-1960’s in the Sierra Nevada mountain range of California. Enterprises proposed a ski development on the that was designed to make the Mineral King area a destination resort. Several organizations fought the development, which would also have affected the nearby Sequoia National Park. A lawsuit was filed by the Sierra Club (Sierra Club v. Morton), but the organization eventually lost the case, yet it set precedent that organizations could use litigation in settling disputes with the For- est Service. The ski area was never developed.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 111 The Environmentalism and Public Participation Era, 1970-1993

here was growing, widespread public concern that new laws and regulations were needed to preserve and protect the environment. T Several of these laws derived from a new environmental awareness brought about by Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962, which documented the overuse of pesticides, especially DDT. The use of chemicals, such as herbi- cides and pesticides, came into contention on the national forests, leading to numerous demonstrations, lawsuits, and occasional violence by those in favor and those opposed. These controversies led the Forest Service to reconsider many of the agency’s land management practices. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), signed into law Janu- ary 1, 1970, mandated that environmental impacts of proposed Federal projects be comprehensively analyzed. An important part of the act made it mandatory that agencies seek public participation on projects, from the planning stage to the review-of-documents stage. These requirements were quickly incorporated into the many projects that were underway on the national forests. Earth Day, on April 22, 1970, foreshadowed the beginnings of a new and fundamentally different conservation-.

Public Partici- pating in For- est Planning, 1989

USDA Forest Service

112 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969

On January 1, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)—the culmination of years of struggle by special interest groups and the authors of the act—Senator Henry M. Jackson and Congressman John D. Dingle. The act required that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared when any Federal agency proposed a “major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment.” The bill had not provoked any major controversy in Congress, and it only received cursory comment from legal journals and the public. But it was to have profound implications for every Federal land management agency.

NEPA established a three-member Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as a part of the Executive Office of the President. The CEQ is re- quired to assess the Nation’s environmental quality annually and review all Federal programs for compliance with NEPA. Section one of NEPA states that the Federal Government’s policy will be “to use all practical means—to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.”

The NEPA requirement for producing EIS’s on major Federal projects was felt to be the minimum necessary to describe all the planned activities, al- ternatives to each proposed action, and consequences of implementing each alternative to the affected Federal agencies and the public. Provisions of the act, as well as its implementing regulations, require public involvement, op- portunities for the public to comment, and the agency’s responses to these comments in the EIS. After more than 25 years of NEPA, Federal agencies have published thousands of EIS’s running from a few pages to many vol- umes on environmental projects.

NEPA’s driving force today is through the EIS process. While some have criticized the NEPA process as long and costly, its public involvement and participation have resulted in more informed decisions and agencies now employ new natural resource specialists to help the agency and the public understand the implications of its decisions on the natural and human en- vironments. Court challenges to Federal decisions have caused an increase in litigation. From the standpoint of special interest groups, NEPA has been both a burden and a godsend: A burden in terms of cost and time for proj- ect startup and a godsend in terms of better decisions based on expected consequences and impacts.

NEPA has opened a whole new avenue for citizen involvement in Federal land management planning and decisionmaking. The NEPA process has been so successful that processes patterned after it are being used in other countries such as Australia and the Philippines.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 113 Controversies Over Clearcutting

Although intensive forestry and protection of the land had taken on even more importance with the adoption of many new forest practices and procedures, cer- tain intensive forestry practices became a problem. In the late 1960’s, a controver- sy developed over the management of Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest, when residents became concerned about the scenic and reforestation problems being caused by clearcutting and terracing on steep slopes. In 1970, Montana’s Sena- tor Metcalf called on Arnold Bolle, Dean of the Forestry School at the University of Montana, to investigate the allegations and prepare a report. Bolle’s committee report was critical of Forest Service operations, which was consistent with several internal reports by the regional office in Missoula.

Aerial Spraying

USDA Forest Service

Skycrane with Logs, Willamette National Forest On the other side of the country, (Oregon) a legal decision against the Forest Service for clearcut logging on the Monongahela National Forest (Izaak Walton v. Butz) called the interpreta- tion of the Organic Act of 1897 into question. The results of this legal de- cision caused an extensive review of forest management by the Forest Ser- vice and later by Congress in 1972. Congressional hearings would later set the stage for the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).

USDA Forest Service

114 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century CLEARCUTTING ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Clearcutting (felling and removing all the trees from a specific area) has been a long-standing technique used extensively in the United States and most other countries. During the late 1800’s and continuing through today, many people opposed to logging, in general, have focused on clearcutting. It has also been the focus of intensive discussion about the proper method to harvesting trees for their wood.

It was at George Vanderbilt’s Biltmore Forest Estate (now part of the Pis- gah National Forest) in the 1890’s that Gifford Pinchot first harbored ideas about “new forestry”—clearcutting vs. selective logging and leaving young trees standing during harvesting, as recounted in Pinchot’s 1947 autobiog- raphy Breaking New Ground: “The old way of lumbering at Biltmore, and everywhere else, was to cut out all the young growth that would interfere with cheap and easy logging, and leave desolation and a firetrap behind....We found that large trees surrounded by a dense growth of smaller trees could be logged with surprisingly little injury to the young growth, and that the added cost of taking care was small, out of proportion, to the result. To establish this fact...was of immense importance to the success of Forestry in America.” Thus from the beginning of professional forestry in America, there was concern about logging methods that involved both ecol- ogy and economics.

The first major controversy involving clearcutting erupted in the Adirondacks of New York State in 1900-03. At the Cornell Demonstration Forest, Bernhard Fernow, chair of the Cornell School of Forestry, intended to convert the broadleaf forest into a forest. The Adirondacks case came under public scrutiny, with Fernow eventually losing his position at Cornell as a result of the controversy, and the school of forestry closing.

During the 1910’s and 1920’s, clearcutting was emphasized as the most desirable method of logging on national forests. As most logging operations were then either railroad or river log drives, the clearcutting decision was practical for the timber purchaser. At the time, huge blocks of national for- est were sold to timber companies with the idea that extracting the standing timber from a watershed would take decades. But there were researchers, especially in the dry pine forests and elsewhere, who were advocating selec- tive logging.

In October 1934, after reviewing several research studies, Regional For- ester C.J. Buck directed the national forests in western Oregon and western Washington to begin timber harvesting by selective logging, rather than by clearcutting in Douglas-fir areas. Basically, there was a fundamental dis- agreement among Forest Service and academic researchers over the clearcutting issue. Two University of Washington forestry professors, Burt P. Kirkland and Axel J.F. Brandstorm, argued that “selective timber manage- ment” was economically advantageous as loggers did not have to take every

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 115 tree and that selective logging did not lay the landscape bare. Forest Service researchers Leo Isaac and Thornton T. Munger, however, argued that selec- tive logging was a short-term economic gimmick used during the Depres- sion that would, in the long run, deplete the forests as only the prime trees would be taken from a stand, leaving the less desirable species on site. They also argued that selective logging practices damaged the trees that remained on the site and that clearcutting was much better. The selective logging method was used in the Pacific Northwest Region Douglas-fir area until the early 1940’s, when C.J. Buck was forcibly transferred to the Washington Of- fice and the policy changed to clearcutting.

Research work continued in the Pacific Northwest and by the early 1950’s there was enough evidence to convince most professional foresters that clearcutting was the most desirable method to harvest trees in the Douglas- fir region. These data were compelling from both the economics standpoint and the ecological standpoint that the seedlings required direct sunlight to grow. However, the research work overlooked several important aspects or consequences of clearcutting: The visual disruption of the forest for at least a decade until the young trees grew tall and the aspect of having a mono- culture of genetically similar trees. Even “hiding” clearcuts behind a row of standing tall trees and an effort to “educate” the public to the advantage of clearcutting did not overcome the ill feelings toward this method of tree harvesting. Many people, then and now, believe that clearcutting is of eco- nomic advantage, rather than an ecological or tree regrowth necessity.

In the late 1960’s, Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest, in a burst of timber harvesting in response to the national needs for wood, began clearcutting then terracing the cutover steep slopes for better seedling regeneration. This caused a controversy. The Bitterroot’s retired Forest Supervisor led protests, the Missoulian carried a series of news articles, and Senator Metcalf commis- sioned a University of Montana Study team to study the alleged misman- agement. The university team—led by Arnold Bolle, dean of the school of forestry— was instrumental in bringing the Bitterroot’s clearcutting issue to national attention.

Another clearcutting controversy on West Virginia’s Monongahela National Forest contributed significantly to the management debate. The Izaak Wal- ton League, an outdoor and fishing organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of several turkey hunters, on the premise that the 1897 Organic Act did not allow clearcutting. In 1973, the Court ruled against the Forest Service. After the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against the agency in August 1975, the Forest Service and Congress decided that something had to be done to change the old law to allow timber harvesting.

These two battles resulted in a series of congressional hearings over clearcutting and forest management in general. Senator Frank Church of Idaho offered an analysis report on clearcutting that resulted in the “Church Guidelines” for limiting the size of clearcuts. The Forest Service voluntarily

116 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century agreed to stay within the guidelines. Clearcuts would not exceed 40 acres. The final result of the controversy was passage of the National Forest Man- agement Act of 1976 (NFMA).

The problems with clearcutting have persisted. The Forest Service is still trying to back away from this controversial method. In 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service proposed a policy, with seven criteria, that would elimi- nate clearcutting as a standard practice and reduce clearcutting by as much as 70 percent from the 1988 level. However, backlash from environmental groups and the timber industry continue to make headlines over clearcutting and this policy. Ivan Doig in his classic 1975 article “The Murky Annals of Clearcutting” wrote: “Professional foresters were honestly dis- agreeing about silvicultural alternatives, but mostly on economic grounds...All in all, [it should]...serve as a classic lesson that disputes over the use of our forests are not going to be decided on ecological merit alone. Nowhere near it.”

Youth Conservation Corps, Young Adult Conservation Corps, and Related Programs

In 1970, a 3-year pilot Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program began—it became fully established in 1974. It was designed to further the development and maintenance of natural resources by America’s youth between the ages of 15 and 19. The young male and female YCC members, from all parts of the country and all walks of life, spent the summer months working on conservation projects on the national forests.

YCC Members Prepare a Lake Area for Public Use

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 117 During 1977, another new youth employment program arrived—the Young Adult Conservation Corps (YACC). This program was intended to further the de- velopment and maintenance of natural resources by America’s young adults (both male and female) between ages 16 and 23. The Forest Service provided many opportunities for enrollees to work on important projects on the national forests. This program was short-lived because its funding was eliminated in 1981.

Woodsy Owl, the symbol of antipollution and wise use of the environment, was introduced in 1971 with the slogan “Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute.” Just as with Smokey Bear, the Woodsy symbol and slogan are protected by law except as au- thorized for antipollution programs. In 1997, Woodsy’s image was updated and his message became “Give a hand, Care for the Land.”

Woodsy with Children

USDA Forest Service

118 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century In 1971, the President signed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that authorized the transfer of 44 million acres of land in Alaska from the Federal Government to various Alaska Native corporations in exchange for the Natives extinguishing aboriginal title to the remaining lands traditionally used and occupied.

John R. McGuire— Tenth Chief, 1972-1979

John Richard McGuire was born on April 20, 1916, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. While serving as Chief from 1972 to 1979, McGuire made changes to strengthen State and Private Forestry’s and Research’s role in implementing the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 and the Nation- al Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. McGuire faced increasing opposition for forestry practices being carried out on the national forests. Most notable were the congressional hearings over clearcutting on the national forests–a result of controversies on Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest and on West Virginia’s Monongahela National Forest.

McGuire was instrumental in requiring the Forest Service to review, and then change, forest management practices and modify and integrate its methods of land management. Major issues facing Chief McGuire were the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) and RARE II decisions; mounting controversy over the management of the national forests; new congressional direction that mandated planning at the forest, region, and national levels through RPA and NFMA; and special interest groups’ in- creased reliance on litigation to influence the management of the national forests.

John R. McGuire wrote:

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing forestry today is the calen- dar—namely the arrival of the 21st century. My question is, will American forestry be ready to meet the 21st century?

A major determinant of how well American forestry prepares for the 21st century will be cooperation in resources management. This means cooperation among Federal, State, and private own- erships; cooperation across long-standing professional barriers; and cooperation with new and different arrangements of people and organizations, a trend which is becoming more evident with each passing year. The interested general public is surprisingly knowledgeable about natural resources. Yet people still need to hear forestry’s message—that sound forestry practices can pro- vide both protection and use.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 119 National Forest Volunteers

The Volunteers in the National Forests Act of 1972 authorized the Forest Service to recruit and train volunteers to help manage the national forests. A highly suc- cessful and visible program, many of the volunteers are retired people who enjoy working outdoors and with the public in a wide variety of capacities ranging from being campground hosts to assisting with archaeological digs.

Volunteer Helping Hikers, (South Carolina),1986

USDA Forest Service

Senior Community Service Employment Program Enrollee Uses a Dado for a Sign on the (Washing- ton)

USDA Forest Service

120 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century RARE and RARE II

As the Wilderness Act of 1964 provided, the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) report was completed in 1972. This controversial wilderness review process evaluated some 55.9 million acres of land and 1,449 roadless areas for possible inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System. The final report was published in 1973, with 274 of the roadless areas (12.3 mil- lion acres) selected for possible wilderness designation by Congress. The deci- sion became immediately embroiled in controversy. A lawsuit in California over a roadless area that had not been selected resulted in the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service ordering a new study of all road- less areas, called RARE II, in 1977.

French Pete Drainage Wilderness Controversy, Willamette National For- est (Oregon)

USDA Forest Service Endangered Species Act of 1973

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 provided for protection of rare, threatened, and endangered animal and plant species. It established Federal procedures for identifying and protecting endangered plants and animals in their native, criti- cal habitats. It declared broad prohibitions against taking, hunting, harming, or harassing the listed species. The intent of the act was to restore endangered spe- cies to levels where protection would no longer be needed. Implementing this act would have drastic consequences on the management of national forest timber and road construction programs during the 1980’s and 1990’s.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 121 Northern Spotted Owl

USDA Forest Service

National Forest Planning

The early to mid-1970’s saw a continued major national forest planning effort under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. By the mid-1970’s, unit plans (ranger district level) and several forest plans were being developed. Many national forests created planning teams to assist in the multiple-use planning of their many resources. New Forest Service specialists were hired because of the planning needs—wildlife biologists, soil scientists, landscape architects, and hydrologists.

122 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Monitoring Fish Popula- tions, (Arkansas)

USDA Forest Service

In 1974, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) became law. The act provided that beginning in 1976, the Forest Service would develop a program or assessment every 5 years that outlined the proposed ex- pected national forest production of various resources. With the RPA program in hand, the Forest Service would go to Congress to obtain the necessary funding to implement its program. This act represented Congress’s first legislative recogni- tion that management of our natural resources could only occur with long-range planning and funding—not planning and funding on a year-to-year basis.

Hydraulic Monitor Mining Nozzle

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 123 The Bolle Report (about Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest) and a court deci- sion against the Forest Service in the Monongahela National Forest clearcutting case spawned the NFMA. The NFMA amended RPA and also repealed major por- tions of the Organic Act of 1897. NFMA mandated intensive long-range planning for the national forests—the most comprehensive planning effort in the western world. NFMA specifically incorporated public participation and advisory boards, various natural resources, transportation systems, timber sales, reforestation, pay- ments to States for schools and roads, and reporting on the incidence of Dutch elm disease.

A committee of scientists created NFMA’s implementation regulations, which be- came final in 1979, and an intensive new forest planning effort began. The Forest Service hired many new specialists, many of them women, to address the various provisions of NFMA—including public affairs specialists, economists, archeolo- gists, sociologists, geologists, ecologists, and operations research analysts. The Forest Service also began an extensive public involvement effort to prepare the new plans. In 1997 and 1998, a new committee of scientists met to evaluate and recommend changes to NFMA and the revised forest planning regulations.

Clearcutting Patterns on the Shelton Ranger District, Olympic National Forest (Washington), 1957

USDA Forest Service

124 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century In the late 1970’s, RARE II once again launched the Forest Service into the public arena. The draft RARE II report, published in 1978, led to many public demon- strations and letter-writing campaigns. The final RARE II report, published in January 1979, recommended that Congress add 15 million acres (only 12.3 mil- lion acres were recommended in RARE) to the National Wilderness Preservation System. However, roadless decisions and wilderness legislation would have to wait until Congress acted. Today, after a series of congressional acts that estab- lished new wildernesses, the Forest Service manages over 35 million acres of wil- derness. This is approximately 18.4 percent of the entire National Forest System.

Bidding for national forest timber reached Regional an all-time high in Forester Dick 1979 and 1980, just Worthington before a wood-prod- at RARE II ucts “depression” hit Press Confer- the timber industry. ence, Pacific Because of very high Northwest Region interest rates, the new- (Portland, home market became Oregon), very depressed, with 1979 the demand and price for lumber products falling to almost record lows. Timber com- USDA Forest Service panies could not economically harvest the timber they had purchased at high prices. Nationally, a number of timber companies struggled, some going bank- rupt, until the economy picked up in the mid- to late 1980’s. The Forest Service experimented with a lighter-than-air balloon and tethered helicopter mix, which was referred to as a “helistat,” to transport logs from remote areas. After many at- tempts, the effort failed.

Experimental Helistat Bal- loon with Four Helicopters, Oregon

USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 125 In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the illegal growing of marijuana on the na- tional forest lands caused numerous management problems. Many of the national forests responded to this problem and other lawlessness by hiring law enforce- ment specialists, who have worked closely with other Federal, State, and local authorities.

In the Pacific Northwest, Mount St. Helens on Wash- ington State’s Gifford Pinchot National Forest rumbled to life with a huge volcanic ex- plosion on May 18, 1980, that sent ash around the world. President Jimmy Carter visited the Forest and was instrumental in establishing the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in 1982.

USDA Forest Service Mount St. Helens Before and During the May 18th Eruption, Gifford Pinchot National For- est (Washing- ton), 1980

126 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century The Forest Products Laboratory designed a new strong, lightweight system for wood construction. Called the timber truss-frame, the system has been widely used by the home construction industry since the 1980’s.

Forest Products Laboratory’s Timber Truss- Framed Con- struction

USDA Forest Service

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976

Congressional hearings began in the early 1970’s on the clearcutting con- troversies on the Bitterroot and Monongahela National Forests, as well as a Federal court decision over the Organic Act of 1897. By the mid-1970’s, arguments in Congress revolved around how specific any new law should be to direct the Forest Service in the management of the national forests. Some members wanted broad statements that would give land managers discretionary authority that would cover any possibility; others wanted lan- guage to mandate specific actions on the ground. In 1989, former Chief R. Max Peterson would say: “It became obvious to most that neither Congress nor anyone else could possibly write management prescriptions that would fit the many physical situations on national forests....This led to a recogni- tion that the legislation would have to set forth a process rather than specify answers.”

NFMA was signed into law on October 22, 1976. NFMA amended Re- sources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) to provide a comprehensive blueprint for managing the national forests. One of the NFMA’s provisions was that the Secretary of Agriculture appoint a committee of scientists—not officers or employees of the Forest Service—to provide scientific advice and counsel on how to implement its intent. It took almost 3 years for these implement- ing regulations to become final.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 127 The regulations required the beginning of a long-range planning process for each national forest. Other NFMA requirements mandated public in- volvement in the planning process, a redefinition of sustained and nonde- clining yield, and clearcutting, which the act defined as an acceptable prac- tice. Another requirement was to “preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities...so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural forest.” NFMA also gave full statutory status to the National Forest System—many of the national forests had been es- tablished in a series of Presidential proclamations from 1891 to 1907.

An act similar to NFMA was passed and signed into law for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This 1976 act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, has similar provisions requiring long-range planning on the BLM-administered lands.

In 1998, a second committee of scientists was formed to rewrite the NFMA regulations, which were felt by many to be outdated. The commit- tee recommended many changes to the regulations. Draft regulations were announced in the summer of 1999, along with a public review period. The final regulations were printed in 2000.

R. Max Peterson— Eleventh Chief, 1979-1987

The first nonforester Chief since Gifford Pinchot, Ralph Max Peterson was born near Doniphan, Missouri, on July 25, 1927. Peterson was the first engineer to hold the position. He served as Chief from 1979 to 1987, during a time of increasing turmoil and criticism of the Forest Service.

Major accomplishments during this era were establishing regulations for imple- menting the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), dealing with the aftermath of the RARE II decision, addressing the “timber depression” and housing slump of the early 1980’s, responding to a rapidly rising concern about the use of herbicides and pesticides on the national forests, supporting various wilderness bills before Congress, addressing a growing concern about the logging of old growth and below-cost timber sales (especially in Alaska), and developing ways to meet the needs of threatened and endangered species. Agency funding was reduced, which resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of em- ployees. Although the public’s trust that the Forest Service could effectively manage the national forests fell because of the multiple issues, Peterson was able to oversee the changing management of the national forests during these trying times.

128 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century R. Max Peterson wrote:

The public’s sudden interest in environmental and resource is- sues in the 1960s and 1970s is well known to all of you. The national forests were of particular interest and concern for sev- eral reasons. National forests are located in 44 states and within a one-day drive of 90 percent of the U.S. population. They provide more outdoor recreation, more hunting and fishing, more timber harvest, more hydroelectric power, and more wilderness than any other public or private land system. In addition, they are a source of high-quality water and a number of important strategic minerals, and provide significant domestic livestock grazing. In short, the resources of these lands are wanted by a large number of diverse users who see them as critical to meeting their future needs. Many also see their own desired use as either exclusive of other potential users or at least incompatible with them. In any language, that spells controversy.

Internal Struggles Geri B. Larson, First A sex discrimination Woman Forest lawsuit against the Forest Supervisor Service’s Pacific Southwest Region (California) resulted in a 1980 “consent decree.” The decree accelerated advancement of women and minority employees to management and line officer positions. In 1985, Geri B. Larson was named the Forest Supervisor of the Tahoe National Forest in California—the first female forest supervisor in Forest Service history.

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 129 Charles “Chip” Cartwright, First Black District Ranger on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (Washing- ton),1983

USDA Forest Service

Budget cuts in the mid- Forester 1980’s reduced the number Lea Dotson of Forest Service employees Examines and eliminated a number of New Growth on Loblolly positions that were created in Pine, Sumter the late 1970’s. In the 1990’s, National reducing the national deficit Forest (South became a priority of the Clin- Carolina), ton administration. There 1986 have been several attempts over the years to reorganize the agency, but little came of them. The most recent attempt was to revamp most of the regions, as well as to reduce the organizational complexity and number of employees. The reorganiza- tion of the regions was not accomplished because of congressional opposition, while other aspects were im- plemented. Today, the Forest Service has around 28,100 permanent employees, down from 35,400 in 1992.

USDA Forest Service

130 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Much of the long-range land and resource management planning was placed in the hands of forest specialists. Public controversy erupted over the manage- ment requirements for wildlife, water and soils, old-growth timber, disposition of remaining roadless areas, road construction costs, and below-cost timber sales in the NFMA planning process. The Forest Service made a decision in the early 1980’s to use a particular linear programming model, FORPLAN, on each national forest for the new forest planning effort. The Forest Service adopted the Data General computer system, which electronically linked all agency loca- tions—Washington Office, research stations, regions, national forests, and ranger districts. It has recently adopted an IBM/UNIX-based system to replace the Data General.

Regional For- ester James Torrence Us- ing the Data General Com- puter System, Pacific North- west Region (Oregon)

USDA Forest Service Beginning in 1984 with the Oregon and Washington Wilderness Acts, which contained much-sought-after “release language” for remaining roadless areas, a number of State-by-State wilderness bills passed Congress (16 additional State- wide wilderness bills were passed in 1984). Still long awaited are wilderness bills for the important States of Idaho and Montana, which contain millions of acres of unroaded lands.

In 1985, to stall the so-called “Sagebrush Rebellion,” the Reagan Administra- tion proposed that the Forest Service and the BLM interchange certain lands in the West for ease of management. This proposal aroused great public outcry, even after a major revision, and was tabled by Congress. In the 1990’s the new “Wise Use” or “Property Rights” or “County Supremacy” movement replaced the Sagebrush Rebellion. County commissioners in Nye County, Nevada, and Catron County, New Mexico, have put new emphasis on local control over Federal land. There have also been a rash of bombings and threats to Forest Service facilities and employees. However, following the Oklahoma City bombing, this violent extreme has seemingly cooled.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 131 F. Dale Robertson— Twelfth Chief, 1987-1993

F. Dale Robertson was born in Denmark, Arkan- sas, on July 17, 1940. Soon after his appoint- ment as Chief in 1987, Robertson had to face a public wary of everything the Forest Service had to say or proposed to do. Especially trou- bling was the growing controversy about the harvest of old-growth timber (ancient forest) trees in the Pacific Northwest and the protec- tion of several species of animals and plants that fell under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. He appointed several task forces to consider all options, but when the deci- sions were made, they did not satisfy everyone.

Several new resource programs were developed under Robertson’s leader- ship, including the highly successful “Rise to the Future,” a program de- signed to enhance the production of fish on the national forests. Robertson led the Forest Service’s effort to find new and creative ways to manage the national forests especially by emphasizing the noncommodity (nontimber) resources, new forestry, new perspectives, and the new era of ecosystem management. Robertson, and his Associate Chief, George Leonard, were reassigned from the Forest Service to the Department of Agriculture on October 29, 1993, after they faced increasing criticism by the Clinton Administration that the Forest Service was not changing fast enough.

F. Dale Robertson wrote:

Here are what I perceive as our strengths: First, our basic mission of “caring for the land and serving people” is very important. Our mission is a winner and naturally attracts strong public sup- port. Second, I truly believe we have the best group of people ever put together in one large organization. We’re the best at what we do. We know our jobs and do them well. Third, we col- lectively have more knowledge about the management of natural resources than any other organization. No one can match our capability, knowledge, and know-how. Fourth, we have a strong organization with a rich culture and good core values. Fifth, we are rich in land and resources.

Even though the national forests and grasslands represent only 1 about 8 /2 percent of the United States, in many ways, they are the 50 percent lands:

132 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century - We have 50 percent of the Nation’s big game animals; - 50 percent of the coldwater fisheries; - 50 percent of anadromous fish spawning grounds along the West coast; - 50 percent of the Nation’s standing softwood sawtimber; - More than 50 percent of the precipitation in the West; - 43 percent of the Federal market share in outdoor recreation; - About 80 percent of the Wilderness; - More than 50 percent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers in the lower 48 States; - In the grazing business, we don’t come anywhere close to 50 percent, but we still play an important role in meeting the Nation’s needs.

The national forests and grasslands are a tremendous economic and environmental asset to the country and a strength of the For- est Service. So when you add all of these strengths—our mission, the capability of the Forest Service people, our knowledge and know-how, our rich culture and strong core values, and being rich in land and resources–it’s pretty impressive.

Owls and Other Wildlife

There has been growing public concern over unique wildlife, several species of which were threatened or endangered, that lived or nested on national forests around the country. In the West, spotted owls, marbled murrelets, grizzly bears, caribou, Pacific , and wolves caused concern, while Texas and the South- east were concerned about the red-cockaded woodpecker. Other regions have different species of wildlife and plants that are unique to certain areas. In 1987 and 1988, various environmental groups sought to have the spotted owl listed with the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a threat- ened or endangered species. A judge later declared that the Fish and Wildlife Service had not provided sufficient information about its decision not to list the bird. Subsequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared its intent to restudy the issue, and in June 1990, it declared the spotted owl threatened in western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California.

Other plant and animal species inhabiting the national forests have joined the spotted owl as species to be considered for threatened or endangered status. Considerable controversy has arisen over the reintroduction of the wolf into the Yellowstone ecosystem. Other concerns have been expressed over many animal and plant species in various parts of the national forests, including the , peregrine falcon, eastern timber wolf, Puerto Rican parrot, Mount Graham red squirrel, steelhead trout, bull trout, and other species.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 133 Red-Cockaded The latest round of forest Woodpecker planning, in which every Forest Service region and national forest developed comprehensive, NFMA- directed forest plans, was basically completed by the end of 1990; however, numerous appeals and law- suits by the timber industry and environmental and other groups have delayed the implementation of many of these plans. On some national forests, appeals and lawsuits have been success- fully resolved through a ne- gotiation process in which the contending parties sat down and discussed options and eventually came to an agreement.

USDA Forest Service

Visitors at Old Growth Exhibit “Play- ing” the For- est Manager Game, 1991

USDA Forest Service

134 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century WILDLIFE AND THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Adapted from Terry West’s Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)

Interest in wildlife was an important part of the conservation movement of the late 19th century. Although wildlife did not have the economic impor- tance of other resources such as timber, forage, and water, nor did it capture the public’s attention as much as efforts to preserve scenic waterfalls or geysers, big game species were perhaps the most endangered resource of that period.

Reformers such as George Bird Grinnell, founder of Field and Stream maga- zine, and Theodore Roosevelt, a cofounder of the Boone and Crockett Club, were alarmed by the fate of big game in the Western States. When Roosevelt sponsored Gifford Pinchot for membership in the club, Pinchot was able to expand the notion of forest conservation to embrace the cause of big game protection. Yet, when the Federal forest reserves were transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture in 1905, the Forest Service apparently did not see much of a relationship between na- tional forest administration and wildlife. An emphasis on timber resources set the future tone of the agency.

Moreover, the agency had to be cautious about regulating game animals and birds on the forest reserves (which were renamed national forests in 1907) for fear of trampling States rights and giving its western critics reason to dis- band the reserves. The policy of the Forest Service was to “cooperate with the game wardens of the State or Territory in which they serve...” according to the first book of directives issued by the agency in 1905 (The Use Book). Two years later, a provision in the Agricultural Appropriations Act of 1907 made it a law that “hereafter officials of the Forest Service shall, in all ways that are practicable, aid in the enforcement of the laws of the States or Ter- ritories with regard to...the protection of fish and game.”

The agency helped pioneer the field of wildlife management and stimulated many of the States to begin or improve their own programs. Hunters and anglers were the largest group of recreationists visiting the national forests, so it was natural for the Forest Service to focus its attention on fish and game animals. Federal game refuges created on national forests to conserve wildlife were helpful in increasing populations of game animals, and these animals could then be hunted on adjacent lands. The growth of deer popu- lations led to conflicts between hunters and ranchers. Recreational hunters wanted more game animals; ranchers, concerned with forage depletion, wanted fewer. In the 1920’s, the Forest Service effort to reduce the overex- tended mule deer populations on the Grand Canyon Federal Game Preserve (Kaibab National Forest) went to the Supreme Court. The agency won a limited victory in 1924 when the Court found that Forest Service employ-

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 135 ees could hunt excess game to “prevent property damage,” that is, to protect the forage resource from overgrazing by deer.

It was there, in the Southwest, that Aldo Leopold, a Forest Service employee from 1909 to 1928, developed his concept of wildlife management that led to the first textbook, Game Management (1933). Leopold favored the eradication of predators as a step in bringing back big game populations. However, after killing a wolf he realized that predators were important to the natural balance of deer populations.

In 1929, the Forest Service hired its first wildlife biologist, Barry Locke, who was stationed in the Intermountain Region. He left 2 years later to serve as Director of the Izaak Walton League. At first, the economic depression of the 1930’s halted wildlife programs for lack of budgets. The public works programs later developed to provide employment in areas such as natural resources conservation, including wildlife habitat improve- ment. Much of this work was done by the millions who served in the Civil- ian Conservation Corps.

By 1936, the year Dr. Homer Shantz became first director of wildlife man- agement, 61 people were assigned to wildlife work in the Forest Service. The national forests in the Southeast grew rapidly in number during the Depression through Federal purchase of severely cutover and eroded private lands. The management challenge for these lands was to make the recov- ering forests suitable places for wildlife. From this goal came the slogan: “Good timber management is good wildlife management.”

In the Pacific Northwest, the Forest Service found that public concern over elk protection superseded demand for timber production. It involved a lengthy battle with the Park Service over the management of Mt. Olympus National Monument, which was established in 1909 to protect the Roosevelt elk (named after Teddy Roosevelt). Forest Service officials argued that the best use of the monument, then managed by the Forest Service, and surrounding national forest land was to open the area to forest (timber) management, which would provide employment and recreation for the local population. The controversy came to a boil during the mid-1930’s when the Forest Service and the Bureau of Biological Survey recommended that the elk population in the monument be reduced by shooting to prevent over- grazing, disease, and starvation. Citizens were outraged, especially the edi- tor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whose wife was the daughter of President Franklin Roosevelt. When Roosevelt visited the area in 1937, he had already decided to include the monument and adjacent national for- est system lands in a new Olympic National Park (established by Congress in 1939).

136 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century In the late 1940’s, agency involvement in wildlife was reduced following the improvement of State fish and game programs and the rise of timber harvesting on national forests. Problem areas surfaced as squirrel hunters in the Southern Region, upset over loss of oak trees exclaimed in 1956: “You kill the hardwoods, we’ll kill the pine.” In the 1960’s, turkey hunters on the Monongahela National Forest complained of clearcuts in their favorite hunt- ing areas. The result was a lawsuit, congressional hearings, and passage of the National Forest Management Act of 1976. This law required the Forest Service to conduct its planning to ensure a diversity of plant and animal species and, therefore, is responsible for the rapid increase in wildlife per- sonnel in the late 1970’s.

The Forest Service was not created to protect wildlife, but its rangers real- ized that if they did not manage these animals’ habitats, nobody else would. Thus, the agency became an early leader in the field of game management. Passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 gave additional authority to land managers to protect individual species and habitats for threatened and endangered wildlife, fish, and plant species. The Forest Service caught up with this new reality with publication of Wildlife Habitats in Managed For- ests—The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington (1979), edited by future Chief Jack Ward Thomas. It was the first agency book to provide “concrete direction for the management of game and nongame species alike.”

Yellowstone Fire Hell Roar- in 1988 ing Fire in Yellowstone As a result of the ter- National rible fires that spread Park, 1988 through Yellowstone National Park and adjacent national forest lands in the summer of 1988, the Forest Service and the National Park Service received considerable public pressure to change their policy of let- USDA Forest Service ting some fires burn naturally (the so-called “let-burn” policy). After much public and scientific debate about fire’s proper role in the environment, and after viewing the subsequent “re- birth” of the park and adjacent national forests, the agencies have modified their policies to put out fires more quickly, but still to allow some natural fires to burn under strictly controlled conditions.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 137 Development of Partnerships

A series of new programs were developed at the Forest Service’s national level in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The Challenge Cost-Share Program, established by Congress in 1986, has provided the means for the Forest Service and the pri- vate sector to share management and financial costs for projects on the national forests.

Currently, several thousand cooperative wildlife habitat enhancement projects on the national forests are carried out by the Forest Service, other Federal and State agencies, and nonprofit organizations–like Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and many others. The habitat enhancement program grew from $2.5 million in fish and wildlife habitat improvements in 1986 to more than $17 million in Federal funds that were matched by $23 million from partners in 1996 to accomplish 2,135 projects.

The Presidential initiative “America’s Great Outdoors” was designed to encourage cooperation between the Forest Service and the private sector in developing and improving recreational facilities and opportunities for the public. Another popu- lar program, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, is the “Scenic Byways” program, which has designated about 7,700 miles of national forest roads and highways for recreational pleasure—often scenic roads that have ample oppor- tunities for scenic vistas, unusual geologic and forest features, bicycle and hiking trails, rest stops, picnic areas, campgrounds, boating, fishing, and wildlife view- ing. In Alaska, the Alaska Marine Highway (the Alaska Ferry System) has also been designated a Scenic Byway.

USDA Forest Service

Pisgah National Forest Scenic Byway (North Carolina)

USDA Forest Service

138 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Several other initiatives have been developed to encourage recreational pursuits on the national forests, as well as to improve the natural resources. One of these has been the successful “Rise to the Future” program, which was designed to enhance fish production and encourage fishing on the forest lakes and rivers. Others include “Taking Wing,” a waterfowl and wetland program to enhance habitat on national forests and support the North American waterfowl plan; “Ani- mal Inn,” a program to communicate the importance of managing dead standing timber and fallen trees for wildlife habitat; and “Join Us,” a program to strengthen public-private partnership in fisheries and wildlife management.

Joe Meade and Guide Dog “Missy,” Deschutes National Forest (Oregon), 1977

USDA Forest Service International Forestry

In 1990, Congress directed the Forest Service to assume a greater role in inter- national environmental affairs. International Forestry, a new “leg” of the Forest Service (along with the National Forest System, Research, and S&PF), was estab- lished in 1991 to coordinate and cooperate with other countries on matters deal- ing with forestry and the environment. Although previous programs had worked closely with other countries to provide expertise and experience in these matters, the International Forestry program area has given higher priority to engaging in dialogue and cooperation with other countries to solve global resource problems. The 1992 signing of the and Agenda 21 at the Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)—the “Earth Sum- mit”—was coordinated by this new branch of the agency. Due to reorganization of the Forest Service and funding cuts, the International Forestry program was re- duced from a Deputy Area to a Staff that reports directly to the Chief in 1997 and renamed the Office of International Programs. The program continues to work with countries on natural resource management internationally. It focuses current programs on Indonesia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the newly independent states since the breakup of the former , and Russia.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 139 Institute of Tropical Forestry, Puerto Rico

USDA Forest Service

International Programs is also the home of the Disaster Assistance Support Pro- gram (DASP), which assists with support personnel and humanitarian relief on international disasters, both natural and human-caused.

INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY

Adapted from Terry West’s 1991 Paper: “USDA Forest Service Involvement in Post-World War II International For- estry”

It may be said that Forest Service’s involvement with foreign forestry began after the Spanish-American War of 1898. U.S. Army Captain George P. Ahern organized the Philippine Bureau of Forestry in 1900 and invited USDA Bureau of Forestry director Gifford Pinchot to visit and offer advice in 1902. Creation of the Luquillo (now Caribbean National Forest) forest re- serve in Puerto Rico in 1903 further involved the Forest Service in tropical forestry. The Forest Products Laboratory (Madison, WI) began a program of tropical wood research shortly after being founded in 1910, with employee Eloise Gerry writing the first of a series of research reports on South Ameri- can forests and woods of commerce in 1918.

In 1928, the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act authorized the estab- lishment of a forest experiment station in the “tropical possessions of the United States in the West Indies.” That act and wording led to the establish- ment of the Tropical Forest Experiment Station in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, in 1939. Today, the expanded International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF) has responsibility for programs in international forestry, State and private forestry, and research and development.

140 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century It was the onset of World War II that set the basis for increased U.S. in- volvement in international forestry. During the war, U.S. Government defense needs led the United States to foster studies of forest conditions in selected Latin America countries. Teams of foresters were dispatched to South America in search of sources of cinchona bark to meet wartime qui- nine needs to treat malaria.

After World War II, foreign aid projects became the concern of interna- tional forestry in the Forest Service. During that period, two organizations involved U.S. foresters in forestry projects: The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the U.S. Agency for International De- velopment (USAID).

FAO was born in 1943 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened a conference to consider ways to organize international cooperation on agriculture. FAO’s agenda excluded forestry until a group led by the Forest Service managed to get it added during FAO’s first conference in 1945.

For years, foresters struggled to persuade developmental agencies that forestry was a critical element in land use planning. The basic problem was that most of these agencies were concerned primarily with agricultural production to feed the world’s growing population. It was left to the Forest Service to promote forestry wherever its staff could find a forum.

There were other forestry opportunities with the International Cooperation Administration (ICA), a semi-autonomous agency with the U.S. Department of State. Early ICA forestry work was small-scale—one person assigned to a country. For example, in the early 1950’s Forest Service employee Eugene Reichard served as forester for Colombia and Bolivia. Nonetheless, this agency was a primary conduit for Forest Service participation in interna- tional forestry.

In 1950, President Truman announced bilateral technical assistance to newly independent countries and to other developing nations. The Forest Service was called upon to provide two kinds of help: 1) Recruiting forest- ers and technical leaders for assignment overseas, and 2) receiving foreign nationals for academic studies or on-the-job training in forestry and related areas. Over the next two decades (1950 to 1970) the Forest Service fur- nished over 150 professionals for long-term assignments or short-term de- tails to technical assistant programs overseas; in the same period over 2,500 foreign nationals went through Forest Service training programs.

In 1958, the unit became known as the Foreign Forestry Service in the Office of the Deputy Chief for Research, with A.C. Cline designated as its director in 1959. Two new sections were added in 1961: 1) Technical sup- port of foreign programs, and 2) training of foreign nationals. In 1987, the program filled over 800 requests for technical consultation from

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 141 50 countries. The same year, 35 Forest Service employees served on 1-year assignments in 20 foreign nations, with 8 others on short-term projects rendering technical assistance in such areas as recreational planning, range management, land use planning, forest industries, and nursery develop- ment.

Following publicity over the environmental impact of tropical deforestation, the 1980’s saw an increased public interest in international forestry. Chief R. Max Peterson in 1980 wrote of “our increasing need for involvement in forestry problems beyond our own domestic programs.” The movement accelerated with a flurry of publications. USAID acted early with its For- est Resources Management Project in 1980 that led to the Forestry Support Program (FSP) in the Forest Service and a joint USAID/ Initia- tive.

A decade later, the 101st Congress passed legislation—the Global Cli- mate Change Prevention Act and the International Forestry Cooperation Act—that greatly expanded the role of the Forest Service in international resource management. The Global Climate Change Prevention Act directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an Office of International Forestry under a new and separate Deputy Chief in the Forest Service. Jeff Sirmon was selected as the first Deputy Chief.

Since 1985, International Programs have included the Disaster Assistance Support Program (DASP) and Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DART). DASP assists with support personnel and humanitarian relief on interna- tional disasters—both natural and human-caused—including fires, floods, famine, earthquakes, and civil strife. DART are deployed by the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA) to assist OFDA in providing disaster prevention, prepared- ness, and emergency response to developing nations in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific regions. The objectives of the DART response teams, which are comprised of volunteers, are consistent with the Strategic Plan for International Cooperation signed by the Forest Service in 1995, the International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990, and the Global Climate Change Act of 1990. Over the last 15 years, many relief teams have been sent to African countries, including Angola, Namibia, Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, and South Africa, as well as to assist with disasters occur- ring in Peru, Yugoslavia, and many other nations throughout the world.

In 1997, the position of Deputy Chief for International Forestry was elimi- nated and International Forestry became the Office of International Pro- grams, reporting directly to the Chief. The program continues to work with countries on natural resource management issues internationally and to support DASP and DART. It focuses current programs on Indonesia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the newly independent states in the former Soviet Union, and Russia.

142 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Ecosystem Management and the Future Era, 1993-Present he foundation for ecosystem management, based on the ecology of the land, air, water, plants, animals, and people, was introduced by T Chief Dale Robertson in 1992. It was a logical conclusion to the earlier management ideas called “new forestry” and “new perspectives.” Although the ideas had been talked about for decades, this was the first effort to apply the principles to the 191 million acres of the National Forest System.

In early April 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore, along with five cabinet members, met representatives of the public in Portland, Oregon, to discuss the spotted owl and timber harvest situation in the Pacific Northwest and northern California. Never in the history of the agency had the administration put such emphasis on resolving problems in the national forests and adjacent BLM districts. The result of the Forest Conference was the calling of the top for- est researchers to develop in 60 days a credible scientific solution to managing the Federal forests under a comprehensive ecosystem management plan for the Pacific Northwest.

The Federal scientists and managers, also known as the Forest Ecosystem Man- agement Assessment Team (FEMAT), produced a comprehensive ecosystem management assessment (FEMAT report) and management plan (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) for the Pacific Northwest. Similar analyses are being worked on for forest areas in other Forest Service regions. The Interagency Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) in 1997 included an assessment and plan for managing the Federal forest and grazing lands of a huge area covering much of central and and Oregon, northern Idaho, and western Montana. Other large-scale assessments have been produced, including the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) in the Pacific Southwest Region (1996) and the Southern Appalachian Assessment (1996). Other long- term assessments, like the Greater Yellowstone, are in the process of study.

The Forest Service, under the leadership of wildlife researcher Chief Jack Ward Thomas, quickly adopted ecosystem management—where the long-term sustainability of ecosystems was the management goal for the National Forest System rather than board feet of timber, dollars in the Treasury or counties, and jobs in the communities.

Chief Mike Dombeck, after his appointment as Chief in 1997, changed the emphasis of ecosystem management through the “Natural Resource Agenda.” Basically, the agenda emphasized four areas of management: 1) watershed health and restoration, 2) sustainable forest management, 3) national forest roads, and 4) recreation. In keeping with the intent of the Organic Act of 1897, this new agenda put protecting the national forests as the primary goal of management, followed by providing abundant, clean water, and finally allowing multiple-re- source management on the areas that can sustain intensive activities. On October 13, 1999, President Clinton announced that the Forest Service would study the road/roadless area issue again and provide a solution for public review.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 143 144 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Ecosystem management, the driving force behind current policy of the For- est Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and other Interior agencies, combines philosophy, conservation, ecology, environmentalism, and poli- tics. Although the term “ecology” has been around since the 1800’s, man- agement using an ecological framework is relatively recent. Aldo Leopold’s book A Sand County Almanac (1949) and Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962) influenced many people to look at the broader picture of the in- teraction between people and the environment. In 1970, Lynton Caldwell published an article that perhaps for the first time advocated using an ecosystem approach to public land management and policy. Then in the late 1970’s, Frank and John Craighead pioneered efforts to use broad ecosystems in the management of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone National Park and surrounding national forests. By the late 1980’s, many researchers and pub- lic land managers were convinced that an ecosystem approach to manage public lands was the only logical way to proceed in the future. The follow- ing 10 elements contain what ecosystem management means for public and private land management (thanks to the work of Edward Grumbine):

1. Multiple Analysis Levels—Use different levels of analysis, from the site- specific location to the broad watershed perspective or even larger. 2. Ecological Boundaries—Define ecosystems by analyzing and managing them across political and administrative boundaries. 3. Ecological Integrity—Protect the total natural diversity, ecological pat- terns, and processes. Keep all the pieces. 4. Data Collection and Data Management—Require more research, better data collection methods, and up-to-date information. 5. Monitoring—Track results of management actions. Learn from mistakes. Take pride in successes. 6. Adaptive Management—Use adaptive management, a process of taking risks, trying new methods and processes, experimentation, and most of all remaining flexible to changing conditions or results. Encourage bet- ter public participation and involvement in planning, decisionmaking, implementation, and monitoring. 7. Interagency Cooperation—Work with agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels, as well as the private sector, to integrate and cooperate over large land areas to benefit the ecosystems. 8. Organizational Change—Change how the various agencies work inter- nally and with partners to encourage cooperation and understanding, as well as advance training for on-the-ground employees. Expand partner- ships and cooperation with other agencies and the public. 9. Humans Are Part of Ecosystems—People are a fundamental part of eco- systems, both affecting them and affected by them. Involve people at all stages in the analysis and decisionmaking phases.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 145 10. Human Values—The human attitudes, beliefs, and values that people hold are significant in determining the future of ecosystems as well as the global environment. Seek balance and harmony between people and the land with equity across regions and through generations by main- taining options for the future.

Jack Ward Thomas— Thirteenth Chief, 1993-1996

Jack Ward Thomas was born in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 7, 1934. Amid controversy about how new Chiefs should be appointed, Thomas was given the job in October 1993 as a political appointee with the assurance that he would be converted to a career appointment through the Senior Executive Service (through which Chiefs Peterson and Robertson were appointed). Soon after his becoming Chief, Thomas had to address a demoralized agency, with the public in opposition to practically anything that the Forest Service proposed to do.

The controversy about the for the spotted owl region (western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California) was espe- cially troubling. Yet Thomas, a Forest Service wildlife researcher his entire career, led several efforts to resolve conflicts over management under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, especially relating to spotted owls. Chief Thomas was greeted with suspicion by some, but was hailed by others. Dur- ing his relatively short tenure as Chief, he moved quickly into implementa- tion of ecosystem management for all the National Forest System lands.

Jack Ward Thomas wrote:

We don’t just manage land—we’re supposed to be leaders. Conservation leaders. Leaders in protecting and improving the land...with a broad view of natural resource leadership, and that includes people, because people are part of ecosystems....The Forest Service is going to be a leader in ecosystem management...right now it’s more a concept than a practice....What does ecosystem management mean? It means thinking on a larger scale than we’re used to. It means sustaining the forest resources over very long periods of time. And from that will flow many goods and services, not just timber. Ecosystem management is not just a timber sale; it’s putting the timber sale into a bigger picture, including the watersheds, wildlife, roads, and people’s needs and values.... will continue to be a significant part of our program, but we will look more at

146 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century multiple variables, not just production. We will be more proac- tive on wildlife programs, fish programs, and recreation pro- grams...we have to involve the citizens of this country....We are going to have to improve our technical skills across the board.... We need to be prepared to move into the 21st century or we’ll be left in the dust.

Michael P. Dombeck— Fourteenth Chief, 1997-2001

Michael P. Dombeck was born on Sep- tember 21, 1948, in Stevens Point, Wis- consin. He spent 12 years with the Forest Service primarily in the Midwest and West. In his last Forest Service post be- fore he became Chief—National Fisher- ies Program Manager in the Washington Office—he was recognized for outstand- ing leadership in developing and imple- menting the fisheries programs and forg- ing partnerships. He then spent a year as a Legislative Fellow working in the U.S. Senate with responsibility for natural re- source and Interior appropriations issues. Dr. Dombeck was named Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in February 1994.

After less than 3 years as Acting Director, he was selected as the new Chief of the Forest Service in January 1997. During his tenure, he focused on two major objectives: Creating a long-term vision to improve the health of the land through the “natural resource agenda” and improving customer service through a program entitled “collaborative stewardship.”

Mike Dombeck wrote:

We are a better, stronger, and healthier Nation due to the work of the Forest Service. In the past, because there were fewer people and demands on the land, we could achieve many of our goals with less conflict. Getting from point A to point B wasn’t all that difficult. We helped define the starting point and decided how to get to the endpoint. That has grown more complex as society has changed and become more complex. Today, we are faced with competing demands, new pressures on the land, and greater challenges than ever before.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 147 There is an ongoing debate in this Nation over how national for- ests and rangelands should be managed. That’s just fine. In fact, it is healthy. Debate and information are the essence of democ- racy. The people we serve, all of the people, are now more fully engaged in defining how to move from point A to point B. Our task is not to dictate the course or the outcome. Rather, we need to be the facilitators, the suppliers of knowledge and expertise, the educators and communicators who help people search for solutions.

But as the debate swirls, we cannot forget our successes or the essential services that we provide daily to people and communi- ties. An important part of our job is to articulate our successes. The most enduring and powerful maxim of business is that “money flows to things people want.” People want their cultural heritage protected, clean air and water, healthy forests and range- lands, good hunting and fishing, sustainable supplies of timber and forage, etc. The one sure way to guarantee that we will have continued downsizing and declining budgets is by not telling people our story. We need to communicate our successes.

My expectation is that everything we do—every environmental impact statement we write, every timber sale, recreation plan, mining plan, or allotment management plan we approve—will not compromise the health of the land. I want to make it very clear that no Forest Service program has dominance over anoth- er. Timber is not more important than wildlife and fisheries. Nor is wildlife and fisheries more important than timber or recre- ation, or cultural resources, and so on.

We will care for the land and serve people by listening to all our constituents and by living within the limits of the land. I call this commitment to healthy ecosystems and working with people on the land “collaborative stewardship.” Our task is to help bring people together on the land. That’s what collaborative stewardship is all about. We are the professionals, scientists, and managers who can work hand-in-hand with State agencies, tribal governments, regulatory and other Federal agencies, conserva- tionists—all who use and care about public lands and natural resources to assure the most efficient and effective conservation management possible.

Our vision cannot be stated better than in the dedication of Breaking New Ground by Gifford Pinchot, published in 1947. “To the men and women of the Forest Service, whose courage, devo- tion, and intelligence have made it and kept it the best organiza- tion in the Government of the United States.”

148 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Changes in the National Forests— Over 100 Years of Progress

here have been thousands of changes to the national forests over the last 100-plus years. The most significant change has been the T establishment of the USDA Forest Service to administer our national forest heritage. The creation of the national forests marked the end of the frontier in American life. The purpose of the Federal Government changed from that of giving or selling the public domain to reserving and managing the public forest lands for the people of the United States and for future generations. Following are some of the important changes that have occurred on the 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands.

National Forests and National Grasslands Prior to 1891, there were no national forests—or forest reserves as they were first called—and no national grasslands. Today, there are 187,811,680 acres of national forests; 3,839,174 acres of national grasslands; and 813,965 acres of purchase units, land utilization projects, research and experimental areas, and related lands—a total of 192,464,819 acres of land administered by the USDA Forest Service for the people of the United States.

National Forest Receipts In the late 1800’s, the forested public domain land, some of which became the national forests, was not on the State and county tax rolls and thus contributed nothing to local, State, and Federal funding. Currently, the Forest Service col- lects $967.8 million in receipts. In addition, the national forests contribute to the States and counties more than $229,035,000 as part of the receipts collected from timber sales, grazing, recreation, mineral extraction, and special use autho- rizations (including firewood, plants, Christmas trees, cabins, resorts, and outfit- ters and guides). These funds, used for schools and roads, generally represent 25 percent of the receipts collected during the year, the other 75 percent are depos- ited to the U.S. Treasury.

Fire Before 1905, an estimated 30 million acres of forest area were burned each year. Currently, the amount of fire damage is approximately 1.9 million acres per year on all ownerships.

Grazing Before 1905, many millions of sheep and cattle grazed the public domain forest lands. Today, the Forest Service administers approximately 50 million acres of rangeland in 33 States. Currently, 8,783 grazing allotments (around 9.3 million head months) contribute $7.0 million to the Forest Service receipts, annually.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 149 Timber Before 1905, very little timber was harvested from the lands destined to become national forests. Most of the timber that was harvested was used by homestead- ers, miners, and railroads. By 2002, the national forests produced about 1.7 billion board feet of timber generating $164 million in gross revenues.

Reforestation Prior to 1905, there was no reforestation on cut-over or burned-over areas. One hundred years later, the Forest Service is planting trees on 277,900 acres annu- ally. There will always be forests for future generations.

Fishing Before 1905, there was minimal fishing on waters in what would become the na- tional forests. Currently, fishing contributes 18.9 million visitor days annually on 2.3 million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; 128,000 miles of fishable rivers and streams; and 16,500 miles of coasts and shorelines. The Forest Service also administers millions of acres of streamside (riparian) habitats. In 1996, recre- ational fishing generated $8.5 billion worth of economic value.

Hunting Prior to 1905, hunting was minimal on what would become the national forests, with much coming from hardy outdoor recreationists on extended trips or on areas near homesteads and . Today, hunting on the national forests contrib- utes around 19.4 million visitor days annually and the Forest Service administers millions of acres of wildlife habitat while the States control the numbers of hunt- able animals.

Minerals Prior to 1905, the value and dollar amount of minerals removed from public domain timberlands was not known—but in some cases, it was substantial. Pres- ently, there are about 7,000 active mining claims on approximately 5.9 million acres of National Forest System lands and another 1,000 or so pits and quarries that provide common variety minerals such as sand, gravel, stone, and pumice. In 1998, about 10 million barrels of oil, 150 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 115 million short tons of coal were produced on National Forest System lands.

Recreation and Tourism Before 1905, recreation was quite limited on what would become the national forests, with much recreation use being for weeks or months at a time in the mountain peak country, popular hot springs, and easily accessible camping and fishing places. Today, recreation use on the national forests is enormous, with more than 860 million visits (or about 341 million recreation visitor days) contributing about $47.6 million to the Treasury each year. There are 140 ski areas, 485 resorts, over 4,000 campgrounds, 73 major visitor centers, and 4,100 private businesses, which provide more than 139,000 jobs on and adjacent to the national forests.

150 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Soil and Water Resource Improvements Before the national forests existed, destruction or massive changes to water- ways caused by uncontrolled development from mining, grazing, and timbering developments were rampant on the public domain. In 1998, restoration for fish habitat was accomplished on about 1,600 miles of streams and 9,500 acres of lakes, with another 38,500 acres of land improvements.

Trails Prior to 1905, there were few trails in or through the mountains, and most of those were older American Indian trails, hunter or game trails, or stock drive- ways. Currently, there are more than 133,000 miles of national forest trails, fewer than several decades back but considerably more than 100 years ago.

Roads Before 1905, there were only a few roads—mostly private, toll wagon roads—on what would become the national forests. A little over 100 years later, there are 381,000 miles of roads, ranging from dirt roads to interstate highways and 7,700 miles of National Scenic Byways in 30 States. In 1998, the Forest Service decom- missioned almost 2,100 miles of unneeded roads.

Wilderness Prior to 1905, the national forest areas in the West were practically all untracked wilderness areas; in the East, what would become national forests were mostly lands that had been cut, burned, or farmed. By 1996, there were 387 congressio- nally designated wilderness units in the National Wilderness Preservation Sys- tem. This amounts to 34.8 million acres of wilderness (about 1 acre in 6 of the National Forest System). The Forest Service manages 75 percent of the designat- ed wilderness within the lower 48 States, or about 63 percent of all wildernesses in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Wild and Scenic Rivers In 1905, the rivers on what would become national forests were almost entirely wild, with a few rivers or creeks diverted for irrigation and mining operations. Over a century later, Congress has recognized more than 4,348 miles or 946,118 acres on the national forests as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Sys- tem.

National Monuments Prior to 1905, there were no national monuments managed by the Forest Ser- vice. The of 1906 authorized the President to establish national monuments. Between 1906 and 1933, about a dozen national monuments were established on the national forests. Those monuments were transferred to the National Park Service in 1933. Since then, two national monuments have been established in Alaska and two others in California. Two national volcanic monu- ments have been established in Washington and Oregon. The national acreage for the Forest Service is now 3.8 million acres. In addition, the Forest Service manages several monuments for the National Park Service.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 151 Wildlife Habitat Restoration Before the National Forest System was established, wildlife habitat was often changed or destroyed by the many activities–some illegal–on the public domain forest lands. In 1998, the Forest Service restored over 167,000 acres of terrestrial habitat, including nearly 42,000 acres within rangeland ecosystems.

Forest Research Prior to 1905, there were basically no organized research studies on forests. To- day, the Forest Service supports approximately 3,005 research studies concerned with the national forest resources.

Forest Service Employees Before 1905, a handful of Government employees in the Department of Agri- culture were paid to study the forestry situation in America. In 2002, the Forest Service employed about 30,000 permanent full-time positions (about 38 percent women and 16 percent minorities) and another 14,700 temporary positions, which range from archeologists to wilderness guards.

Special Employment Programs Prior to 1931, there were no special employment programs on the national forest lands. Today, the Forest Service has 18 Job Corps centers, with 8,976 students between the ages of 16 and 22 employed on conservation projects and education programs. Job Corps students accomplished almost $18.5 million worth of work on national forest projects. YCC employed another 894 enrollees on the national forests during the summer months, returning $1.14 in work for each dollar ap- propriated. The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) has about 5,873 low-income persons, 55 or older, participating in national forest and other Forest Service projects, returning $1.45 in work value for each appropri- ated dollar.

Volunteers in the National Forests Before 1905, (and the next 30 years) there were no “official” volunteers on the lands that became national forests. However, over 100 years later, 90,678 vol- unteers have contributed work valued at $38 million. Volunteers often serve as hosts to oversee the daily operation of the many Forest Service recreational facili- ties.

152 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Dale N. Bosworth— Fifteenth Chief, 2001–Present

Dale N. Bosworth became the 15th Chief of the For- est Service on April 12, 2001. Bosworth held posi- tions as regional forester for the Intermountain and Northern Regions before he was chosen to be Chief of the Forest Service. During his time as Chief of the Forest Service, he has reorganized the agency to give more authority and dollars to the regions and national forests, to better respond to “analysis paralysis” (the efforts by some to slow Forest Service work through numerous appeals and lawsuits), and to implement the National Fire Plan 2000. During Bosworth’s tenure, the increasing danger to communities from wildfires and heavy “fuel loads” in forests became major issues. The fires of 2002 were very difficult for the Forest Service, especially in terms of acres burned and money spent on firefighting.

Dale Bosworth wrote:

On the national forests...long-term ecosystem health drives everything we do. It determines whether or not—and where and how—we decide to cut trees. Our vegetation management projects are guided by the principle that what we leave on the land is more important than what we take away....Some people say we ought to leave the land alone to heal itself. But it is an illusion to think that just leaving nature alone will restore the open old-growth pine forests....Competition for limited resources will keep the dense trees that are there now small forever—or until they are destroyed by insects or fire. In fact, the original open forests were probably never entirely natural; studies suggest that they evolved together with American Indians and their land management practices, particularly burning....Our American Indian heritage teaches the need for active management.

I think we can find common ground for deciding at the local level what our priorities and treatments should be. Today, we have amazing new opportunities for collabora- tion. New technologies such as the Internet allow us to work together with partners all across the landscape....If we work together based on shared goals for the land, everyone benefits. Ecologically, we can benefit the land by restoring ecosystems to something more resembling their condition at the time of European settlement. So- cially, we can benefit our local communities by helping people make themselves safer from wildland fire. Economically, we can benefit our citizens by providing jobs and by helping them take advantage of local business opportunities to utilize excess trees and brush.

When you think about it, the national forests and grasslands are a great unfinished experiment. We as a Nation are testing a hypothesis—the hypothesis that a great system of public lands can provide benefits to many different people, for generation after generation, forever and ever...The jury is still out. People all over the world are watching and waiting to see if what we are doing is the right thing. A lot is at stake. From an article in Fire Management Today (based on his 2002 McClure Lecture at the University of Idaho.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 153 Summary— 100 Years of Forest Service Management

he philosophical foundations of preserving and using the natural resources on Federal land have many deep roots that date to the 19th T century. After the decisions made by Congress in the 1890’s, the National Forest System has grown to more than 191 million acres. This land, owned by the people of the United States, has been managed by the USDA Forest Service since 1905. Forestry, as worked out by Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the For- est Service, is synonymous with conservation of forests and other natural resourc- es over the long term. Its equivalent today is ecology-based management.

Management of the national forests has undergone significant change over the last 100-plus years. Protecting forests through Presidential and congressional ac- tions was essential in the early 1890’s, as was trying to get congressional approval and funding to manage these entrusted lands. During the first part of the 20th century, protection of the newly created national forests from fire and abuse was of paramount importance. The Great Depression created opportunities for the na- tional forests and the Forest Service to play a major role in helping people survive economically through conservation work programs and projects.

Following World War II, the national forests began playing an increasing role in the production of timber products, but led to controversy about the “weight” of timber production in the mix of uses coming from the public forest lands. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 was the first important law to redi- rect the agency to consider all uses—not just timber. Quickly following was the Wilderness Act of 1964, which set aside vast areas of congressionally protected national wildernesses.

Controversy was only beginning as battles over clearcutting and roadless areas plagued the agency—resulting in a series of new laws, including RPA, NFMA, and a series of environmental protection laws, such as the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Forest Service has had to incorporate new kinds of management into the administration of the national forests—the most recent changes have been the embracing of ecological management, national fire planning, partnerships, and collaborative stewardship.

154 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century The future is murky. There are powerful interest groups that want the Forest Service and the national forests to revert to an intensive management era to pro- tect and preserve jobs and use the trees and other natural resources to the fullest extent possible. While at the other end there are those who want the resources totally preserved, to have a “zero-cut” of the trees, and to keep people out of the national forests–a policy even more restrictive than that of the national parks. Other special interest groups want to increase their “share” of the resource uses available on the national forests. All groups seem to believe that science and more data will “prove their case.” But the reality is that decisions about the future man- agement of the national forests, as well as the use of the natural resources, are es- sentially political in nature. Data and the scientific method can only give answers to questions, not set policy and practices.

Discussions over the years by various Administrations and Congress have cen- tered on moving the Forest Service and the national forests from the Department of Agriculture back to the Department of the Interior. Other proposals have put forth the notion of having one Federal agency, such as a Department of Natural Resources, to administer all the national forests and parks, wildlife refuges, BLM lands, and others. These ideas, as well as competing ideas about the proper role of the Federal Government in owning and managing lands, will be discussed again.

Without the foresight and dedication of a great number of people during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there would be nothing to debate today. The national forests would have long ago been carved into millions of private owner- ship plots and extensively logged and changed forever. The national forests are our legacy for future generations. For 100 years, the Forest Service has been the manager of the national forests. It has not always been easy or without contro- versy. To survive into the next century, the Forest Service will have to continue incorporating the public needs and new ideas of management, just as it has for the first 100 years.

The USDA Forest Service—The First Century ■ 155 Further Reading

ny number of books discus the beginning and current operations A of the USDA Forest Service. A short list of readings should include: Fedkiw, John. 1999. Managing Multiple Uses in National Forests, 1905-1995: A 90- Year Learning Experience and It Isn’t Finished Yet. FS-628. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

Hays, Samuel P. 1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement 1890-1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pinchot, Gifford. 1947. Breaking New Ground. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.

Runte, Alfred. 1991. Public Lands, Public Heritage: The National Forest Idea. Niwot, CO: Roberts Rinehart Publishers.

Steen, Harold K. 1976. The U.S. Forest Service: A History. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Steen, Harold K. (ed.) 1992. The Origins of the National Forests: A Centennial Sym- posium. Durham, NC: .

USDA Forest Service. 1976. 100 Years of Federal Forestry. Agriculture Bulletin 402. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

West, Terry L. 1992. “Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service.” FS-518. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

156 ■ The USDA Forest Service—The First Century Slightly revised April 2005 FS-650